THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO A N D THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1000 OF 2009 Dated : 02.02.2010 Between : Syed Minhajuddin ….. Appellant/Petitioner a n d All concerned ….. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO A N D THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1000 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.07.2009 passed in G.W.O.P.No.697 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed under Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act. 2) The background of the case leading to file this appeal by the petitioner in G.W.O.P.No.697 of 2009 is that the petitioner purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 25.09.1998 in the name of his minor son Master Syed Tajuddin. As on the date of purchase, his son was minor. At present, the age of the minor son is 11 years. Now, he intends to dispose of the property standing in the name of his minor son and purchase some other property for the benefit of the minor. He approached the Chief Judge by filing G.W.O.P.No.697 of 2009 under Section 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking permission to sell the property. He got himself examined as P.W.1 and marked four documents as Exs.A.1 to A.4. The learned Chief Judge on consideration of material on record and on hearing the petitioner dismissed the application by order dated 07.07.2009 on the ground that the petitioner has not disclosed the name of the person to whom he intends to sell the property, which is standing in the name of the minor. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3) The appellant/petitioner filed C.M.A.M.P.No.2035 of 2009 under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking permission to sell the property pending the appeal. When the C.M.A.M.P. came up for consideration, with the consent of the appellant, we have taken up the appeal itself for final disposal. 4) Hence, heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material brought on record. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant furnished the name of the purchaser when the matter was pending in the trial Court, but the trial Court has not taken that fact into consideration and dismissed the application. 6) The appellant placed Photostat copy of the agreement of sale along with the material papers. As seen from the agreement of sale, the petitioner as guardian of the minor namely Master Syed Tajuddin entered into an agreement of sale in favour of Mohammed Osman to sell the property for Rs.18,00,000/-. Such is the situation, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration. The appellant has to make necessary application before the trial Court to implead the proposed purchaser as a party and file necessary documents. 7) Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 07.07.2009 passed in G.W.O.P.No.697 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, and remanding back to the trial Court for fresh disposal as indicated supra. ________________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 2nd FEBRUARY, 2010 SKM/SUR