{1} fa95811.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.958 OF 2011 Padmabai w/o Sandu Salampure, age: 29 years, Occ: Household, R/o Golwadi, Tq. & Dist.Aurangabad. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Aurangabad. Respondent Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for the appellant. Mr.T.S.Lodhe, A.G.P. for respondent. CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 06 th July, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1 Heard Shri A.S.Bajaj, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri T.S.Lodhe, learned A.G.P. for Respondent-State. Appeal is admitted and taken up forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 Appellant, mother of minor son Ritik @ Pratik, tendered an application, which came to be registered as M.A.R.J.I. No.175/2009, seeking permission for alienation of share of the minor in the ancestral property. The application was moved as contemplated by Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The appellant mother states in the application that her son Ritik @ Pratik, aged about 8 years, is having interest in the joint family property bearing G.No.65, situate at {2} fa95811.odt Golwadi, Taluka and district Aurangabad. The members of the joint family, in order to meet family needs, want to alienate the family property including joint share of the minor. An agreement to sell has already been entered into with one Vinay Pundalik Choudhary and Ajay Pritamdas Bajaj on 16 th October, 2008. The appellant contends that interest of the minor would be protected and the funds derived from alienation of the share of the minor would be applied for his interest. 3 The trial Court, considering contentions raised by the appellant, was not convinced as regards merits of the application. It was observed by the trial Court that the appellant has failed to satisfy as to how the proposed alienation would benefit the minor. It is observed in the order that merely because very handsome amount of consideration is being received out of sale of the property, that itself cannot be a ground for granting permission. In this view of the matter, District Judge-3, Aurangabad, has proceeded to reject the application by order dated 17.08.2010. An application bearing M.A.R.J.I. No.442/2010, seeking review, was presented by the appellant, which also came to be rejected on 15.01.2011. 4 I have perused the orders passed by the trial Court and heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for respective parties. 5 Shri Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has invited my attention to the copy of agreement to sell, placed on record at Exhibit-A. The agreement to sell is entered with the prospective purchasers on 16.10.2008. The price of the property, as per the index prepared by the Registering Authority for recovery of stamp duty on {3} fa95811.odt alienation of the property, denotes market price of the property under sale at Rs.2,82,000/-. The property, however, is being alienated for consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-. It is, thus, apparent that value fetched on alienation of the property is far more than the value prescribed by the State. No inference, therefore, can be drawn that the property is being sold below market price. The question of protecting interest of the minor can be suitably dealt with by directing the appellant to deposit the amount, which may fall to the share of minor, in a fixed deposit until the minor attains majority. 6 Shri Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has filed affidavit of appellant today contending therein that the minor child has 1/8 th share in the joint family property and the amount receivable by the minor, out of total consideration, comes to Rs.3,75,000/-. The appellant has given willingness to spare aforesaid amount and invest it in fixed deposit in Nationalised Bank until minor attains majority. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and with a view to protect interest of the minor, directions can be issued while granting permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guaridanship Act, 1956. 7 I, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to invest sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs) in fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of ten years i.e. until the minor son Ritik @ Pratik attains majority. Subject to deposit of amount, as directed, permission for alienation of the share of minor son in the joint family property is accorded. The application tendered by the appellant, being M.A.R.J.I. No.175/2009, shall be deemed to have been allowed subject to {4} fa95811.odt the condition, as stated above. 8 Shri Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that in the event of purchase of the property for the benefit of minor by the appellant, the appellant may be granted leave to approach this Court seeking modification of the order. Leave is granted. 9 Appeal is, thus, allowed in terms stated above. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE adb/fa95811 JUDGE