THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.618 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the docket order dated 21.12.2009 passed in O.P.(SR)No.6346 of 2009 on the file of the District Judge, Nalgonda. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 3. The petitioner’s husband, namely, Krishnaiah @ Kistaiah died intestate on 31.07.2006 leaving behind the petitioner and three sons, out of three sons, two are minors. The petitioner filed petition under Sections 31 and 33 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking permission of the Court below to raise loan by mortgaging the shares of the minors. The learned District Judge returned the petition with the following endorsement dated 26.11.2009: “Heard. Property is not in the name of the minors. Hence, this petition under the Guardians and Wards Act is not maintainable. Hence, returned” The petitioner represented the O.P.(SR). Even on resubmission, the learned District Judge returned the O.P.(SR) with the following endorsement dated 21.12.2009: “This petition was called on bench on 25.11.2009 and after hearing the causes for petition this Court passed order by returning the petition as this petition is not maintainable. How this petition is resubmitted” Assailing the return endorsement dated 21.12.2009, this revision has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no distinction of property between a sale and a mortgage as to granting of sanction under Section 29 of the Act and since the petitioner intends to mortgage the shares of the wards, the petition is maintainable under Section 29 of the Act. In support of his submitted, reliance is placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in Raman vs. Tirugnanasambandam[1]. 5. The petitioner has specifically stated in the petition that her husband died intestate and thereby she and her sons, of which two are minors, inherited the property. It is specifically stated in the petition that by raising loan, she intends to construct three floors over the existing house at the cost of Rs.25,00,000/-, which in turn gets a monthly rent of Rs.25,000/-. Since the permission sought for is mortgage of the shares of the minors’ in the house property, it cannot be said that the petition under Sections 31 and 33 of the Act is not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, return endorsement dated 21.12.2009 in O.P. (SR)No.6346 of 2009 cannot be sustained. The petitioner has to represent the returned O.P.(SR)No.6346 of 2009 within a period of one week from today. On such representation, the learned District Judge has to number the O.P. if it is otherwise in order. 7. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed at the admission stage. No costs. ________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 23rd February, 2010 GHN [1] AIR 1927 Madras 233