- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14446-DB MFA No. 103543 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103543 OF 2025 (GW) BETWEEN: SMT. NASHIMA W/O. RIYAZ ASUNDI AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEHARU NAGAR, GARAG, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: NIL …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.47 OF GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN GUARDIAN AND WARDS CASE NO.197/2024 DATED 21.03.2025 BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DHARWAD AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS CASE NO.197/2024 FILED BY THE APPELLANT BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.07 11:06:42 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14446-DB MFA No. 103543 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.) The appellant/petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 in G&WC No.197/2024 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad by allowing the appeal. 2. The appellant has filed the petition before learned Trial Judge under Section 29(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 praying for permission to sell the properties standing in her name and also in the name of her minor children, bearing Survey No.290/1 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas, Survey No.291/2 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas, Survey No.291/3 measuring 2 acres 12 guntas. 3. It is stated in the petition that petitioner's husband is having health issues and unable to cultivate the scheduled properties. The scheduled properties are not having proper approach road and thus he is unable to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14446-DB MFA No. 103543 of 2025 cultivate anything there. These properties are not cultivated since several years and are not yielding any income. Hence, she intends to sell them and to purchase some other agricultural property and also to utilize the same for the purpose of education of her children and to invest the same for the benefit of minor. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner is the mother and natural guardian and thus sought permission of the Court to alienate the properties. One Prashant S/o Shankar Rao Ghorpade offered to purchase the said properties for a sum of ₹15,00,000/- per acre and it is the highest market value. Petitioner’s husband Riyaz has no objection to sell the said properties. Petitioner is in need of money for future education, medical expenses of her children and for the welfare and interest of minor and to clear the debts. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14446-DB MFA No. 103543 of 2025 5. After filing the petition, citation was taken in a newspaper and even after such citation, no one appeared to contest the petition. 6. On behalf of petitioner, petitioner was examined as PW.1, examined her husband as PW.2, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and closed her side before the Trial Court. 7. After recording evidence and hearing arguments, learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has not made out any ground to sell the petition scheduled properties for the interest of minor. 8. Aggrieved by the said order of the Trial Court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the appeal papers along with trial court records, the following points would arise for our consideration in this appeal: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14446-DB MFA No. 103543 of 2025 1. Whether the appellant has made out case to sell the petition scheduled properties for the interest of minor and learned Trial Judge erroneously not appreciated this fact? 2. Whether interference on the said order is required? 3. What order? 10. Our answer to the above points is as follows: Point No.1: In the negative Point No.2: In the negative Point No.3: As per final order 11. Point No.1 & 2: The petitioner is the mother of one Mohammad Saad S/o Riyaz Asundi, aged about 6 years. 12. The RTCs as per Exs.P.1 to P.3 produced before the Court reveals that these properties bearing Sy.No.291/3, 290/1, 291/2 are standing in the name of petitioner and her minor son Mohammad Saad represented by the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14446-DB MFA No. 103543 of 2025 13. The petitioner contended that her husband is having health issues and thus unable to cultivate the petition scheduled properties. However, even though her husband was examined as PW.2, he has not stated what was the illness suffered by him and both PW.1 and PW.2 have not stated the nature of illness of the father of minor child to ascertain whether he is able to cultivate the properties or not. Further, the petitioner stated that she intends to sell this property to purchase other agricultural property. However, it is not stated in the petition that which property she is going to purchase and for how much amount. 14. The further contention of the petitioner is that they have incurred loan of ₹20,00,000/- and to clear the said loan also, sale of the property is required. To substantiate, the petitioner has produced only the loan receipt issued by the Bank of India dated 08.01.2025, which reveals that by pledging two gold ornaments, petitioner has obtained loan of ₹39,173/-. Only for this much loan, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14446-DB MFA No. 103543 of 2025 petitioner cannot be permitted to sell the properties totally measuring 5 acres 20 guntas of the minor. 15. It is further stated in the petition that petitioner requires sale of property for the future interest, education and medical expenses of the minor. In this regard, she has only produced the study certificate of her son as per Ex.P.8 which reveals that her son is studying in UKG at Prerana School M.K. Hubli and it does not reveal what was the school fee structure, etc. For sending the child to UKG, sale of this property worth about ₹15,00,000/- per acre even as per the say of petitioner is not warranted. 16. Considering all these aspects in a right and proper perspective, rightly, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition because the interest of minor is paramount at the time of deciding the petition of present nature, which is not forthcoming for the sale of the properties mentioned in the petition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14446-DB MFA No. 103543 of 2025 17. We do not find any error in the aforesaid order. Accordingly point No.1 and 2 are answered in negative. 18. Point No.3: In view of our findings on point No.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Petition filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980 is dismissed by confirming the order passed in G&WC No.197/2024 dated 21.03.2025 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE Sh, CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16