1 ao147.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 147 OF 2011 Satish s/o Bajirao Taur, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agri. and Contractor, R/o. Gunjmurti, Tq. Ghansavangi, Dist. Jalna, At present, N-2, Ramnagar, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ...APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through the District Collector, Beed. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. B.A. Shinde, Advocate for appellant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This Appeal from Order is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 16-06-2011 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-1 Majalgaon in Misc. Civil Application No. 01 of 2011. 2 ao147.11 2. The appellant herein, filed Misc. Civil Application No. 01 of 2011 under Section 8 of the Guardian and Wards Act for his appointment as guardian of his two minor daughters and their property and also seeking permission to sell his minor daughters' land admeasuring 2 Hector 21 Are out of Gat No.14 in village Kalegaon Thadi, Tq. Majalgaon District Beed. 3. It is the contention of the appellant that, the aforesaid land was purchased by the appellant in the name of his minor daughters for consideration of Rs.66,000/- vide registered sale deed NO. 2560/2003 dated 16-05-2003 from original owner Mr. Baliram Bapurao Tour. Thereafter, the names of his minor daughters are also mutated/recorded as owners of the suit land. . It is the further contention of the appellant that, the suit land is situated towards southern side of Godavari river whereas his native 3 ao147.11 place is situated 4 K.M. away from Godavari river towards it's northern side. When he purchased the suit land, there was no dam project existing or even under consideration and therefore, it was easy for him to visit the suit land from his village. Subsequently in the year 2008, Government has constructed Dam on Godavari river which causes inconvenience to visit the suit land from his village. He is unable to cultivate the suit land and to manage it and therefore, he is not getting income from the suit land though it is irrigated land. Besides, he is contractor by occupation and on account of his occupation, he has shifted to Aurangabad where he has his own house in which he resides alongwith his family including his two minor daughters namely Shital aged 14 years, studying in 10th Standard and Vaishnavi aged 11 years, studying in 8th Standard at Aurangabad. . It is further submitted that, his minor daughters are taking education and therefore, he intends to sell the suit land to provide higher 4 ao147.11 education to them. Thus, the proposed sale of the suit land is for the benefit of his minor daughters. Documents were produced on record before the trial Court in support of the contention of the appellant. 4. After appreciating the documents and evidence on record and after hearing the appellant and after recording the evidence, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant herein. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant was at pains to argue that, the suit land is purchased by the appellant himself in the year 2003 in the name of his minor daughters and for their welfare, he wish to sell the said land. Sum and substance of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, the appellant wish to sell the suit for for higher education of his daughters. 5 ao147.11 6. After appreciating the contention of the appellant and after recording evidence, the trial Court found that, nothing is placed on record by the appellant that his daughters really needs such money for higher education. Admittedly, one daughter is stying in 10th Standard and another daughter is studying in 8th Standard. Therefore, stage of higher education is yet to be reached. The evidence which was produced by the appellant was not sufficient. It is relevant to mention that, in the same application there was prayer to appoint him as guardian and another prayer to sell the land. Therefore, the intention of the appellant was not bona fide as recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, no case is made to interfere in the impugned judgment and order. The impugned judgment and order is confirmed. Appeal from Order is devoid of any merits and same stands dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11