KASTURI @ PHOOLMATI v. ESTATE CHANDRA SHEKHAR(MAD) AND ANOTHER
FAPL/164/2024 · 2025-04-18
Abdul Moin
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 162458 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 162458 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22099 Court No. - 5 Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 164 of 2024 Appellant :- Kasturi @ Phoolmati Respondent :- Estate Chandra Shekhar(Mad) And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Shankar Trivedi Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1890") being aggrieved against the judgment dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barabanki in Civil Misc. Case No.236 of 2022 in Re: Kasturi alias Phoolmati Vs. Estate Chandra Shekhar (Mad) and Another, by which the application filed by the appellant for selling the property of Chandra Shekhar has been rejected.
3. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial court would indicate that the learned trial court has considered that an application has been filed by the appellant contending that the appellant is the guardian of her deranged brother, who was the respondent No.1 therein and respondent No.1 herein also, and the appellant has prayed for permission to sell off the property belonging to her brother.
4. Learned trial court has rejected the said application on the ground that under Section 29 of the Act, 1890, an application is to be filed by a person who has been appointed or declared by the court to be a guardian of the property of a ward.
5. Learned trial court has considered that there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant has been appointed as a
guardian rather the application has only been filed for selling of the property of the respondent No.1 which application is clearly not covered by the provisions of the Act, 1890 till such time the appellant is considered to be a guardian.
6. Considering the specific provision of Section 29 of the Act, 1890 and the finding of the learned trial court, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order passed by the learned trial court.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
8. However, this order shall not preclude the appellant to file an appropriate application for the purpose of she being appointed as a guardian of the respondent No.1 in accordance with law and relevant rules. Order Date :- 18.4.2025 S. Shivhare Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench