1 ao173.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.173 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12130 OF 2011 Alimnawaj s/o Muniroddin Bagwan, Aged: 4 years, Occ: Nil, Through Natural Guardian, real father Muniroddin s/o Mainoddin Bagwan, Age: 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Hatte Nagar, Latur Dist. Latur. ...APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr.V.T. Sakolkar,Advocate for appellant/applicant. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 14TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard Counsel for the appellant at length. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, the land which he 2 ao173.11 wish to sell is purchased from his own earnings for Rs.2 lacs and some odd amount and he wish to sell the said land for Rs. 6 lacs and some odd amount. Learned Counsel for the appellant further invited my attention to provisions of Section 100, 102 and 108 of the Mohammedan Law and submitted that, the appellant since legal guardian has every right to sell the property of the minor, if he gets more than double price of the said land. The Counsel further invited my attention to Exhibit-D at page-27 and Exhibit-F at page-36 to support his contention that the said land is purchased from his own source of income. The Counsel further invited my attention to the grounds taken in the appeal memo, annexures thereto, averments made in the Civil Application and submitted that, the Appeal from Order may be allowed and the appellant may be allowed to sell the land. 3. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. The trial Court has given as many 3 ao173.11 as seven reasons for not granting permission to sell the land, by elaborate findings on each aspect that the appellant failed to place on record the distance between Latur and Yellori has not been mentioned. No evidence has been placed on record to show the distance between the two places. In para-5 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has observed that, some of the land is also in the name of the appellant and if it is inconvenient for the appellant to cultivate the land in the name of minor because of the distance, in that case there is land in the name of appellant and any how the appellant will have to look after the said land. After considering the submissions and evidence brought on record, the trial Court has recorded finding that, allowing such sale will not be in the interest of minor and intention of the appellant does not deems to be bona fide. 4. Though learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that, by selling such land, 4 ao173.11 he will get more than Rs. 6 lacs and therefore, he may be allowed to sell the land, in my considered opinion, the findings recorded by the trial Court, needs no interference. Cogent reasons are given by the trial Court. 5. Appeal from Order and also Civil Application stands rejected. . The appellant will be at liberty to file a fresh application after six months from today. However, such application should be accompanied with sufficient evidence so as to enable the concerned Court to consider the averments in the application, in the light of evidence produced on record. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/OCT11