HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2813 of 2026 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Sri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff. 2. The appellant has preferred the present First Appeal From Order against the judgment and order dated 4.8.2026 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in Original Suit No. 312 of 2024 (Smt. Shashi Vs. Ajay Kumar), whereby the application seeking appointment of the appellant as legal guardian of the minor and grant of permission to sell the property of the minor for her welfare and benefit has not been considered adequately by the learned Court below, and by the impugned order, the learned Additional Civil Judge has only appointed the appellant as legal guardian of the minor but has declined to grant permission to sell the property of the minor. Arguments on behalf of the Appellant 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant filed an application under Sections 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking her appointment as guardian of the minor child. Along with the said application, permission was also sought to sell the property falling to the share of the minor child, so that the sale proceeds may be utilized for his/her care, welfare, education, maintenance and other legitimate needs.It is submitted that the appellant also moved an application dated 30.05.2025 before the learned court below, requesting that the evidence led by her be duly considered while deciding the application for appointment of guardian as well as the consequential relief sought by her. 4. Learned counsel submits that by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.08.2026, the learned court below partly allowed the application and appointed/declared the appellant as guardian of the minor child. However, the relief sought by the appellant with regard to permission to sell the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Prashant Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mrs. Shashi .....Appellant(s) Mr. Ajay Kumar .....Respondent(s) property belonging to the minor child has not been granted in the manner sought by the appellant.It is submitted that the appellant had placed sufficient material and evidence before the learned court below to establish that the proposed sale of the minor's property was necessary and was in the interest and welfare of the minor child. The sale proceeds were intended to be utilized only for the care, education, maintenance and other genuine requirements of the minor. 5. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the learned court below has failed to properly appreciate the evidence and material placed on record by the appellant while considering the consequential relief regarding the property of the minor. The impugned judgment, to that extent, therefore, requires interference by this Court. Conclusion 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the findings recorded by the learned court below. 7. It has been noticed by the learned court below that the appellant, in her pleadings as well as in her evidence, stated that after the death of her husband in the year 2016, she has been residing with her parents and is properly taking care of her minor daughter, who is studying in Class-II at High Top Public School. She further alleged that the respondent is trying to forcibly occupy the land belonging to the minor and, on this ground, sought permission to sell the said property and to purchase another property in lieu thereof. 8. The learned court below has considered the aforesaid circumstances and has recorded a finding that the reason assigned by the appellant for seeking permission to sell the property does not satisfy the condition contemplated under Section 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act. In my considered view, the said finding does not call for any interference. The purpose of Section 31 is to protect the property of a minor and to ensure that the same is not alienated merely for the convenience of the guardian. Permission for sale cannot be granted as a matter of course. The Court has to satisfy itself that the proposed sale is necessary or clearly beneficial for the minor and that the interest of the minor would be adequately protected. 9. The grievance of the appellant that the respondent is trying to forcibly occupy the property also cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for permitting sale of the property standing in the name or falling to the share of the minor. If the appellant apprehends any illegal interference or forcible occupation by the respondent, the appropriate remedy is available to her before the competent civil court by seeking appropriate relief, including an injunction for protection of the minor's property. The apprehension of FAFO No. 2813 of 2026 2 forcible occupation cannot be made a ground for permitting alienation of the minor's property, particularly when no material has been brought on record to establish that sale of the property is necessary for the care, maintenance, education or welfare of the minor. 10. The mere fact that the appellant proposes to purchase another property from the sale proceeds also does not, in the absence of sufficient material regarding the necessity and comparative benefit of such transaction, justify permission under Section 31 of the Act. The requirement of prior permission of the Court itself operates as a safeguard against unnecessary or imprudent alienation of the minor's property. 11. Thus, considering the pleadings and evidence available on record and the reasons recorded by the learned court below, I find that the appellant has failed to establish any necessity or substantial benefit to the minor which may justify sale of her property. The finding recorded by the learned court below is neither perverse nor contrary to the provisions of law and does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the finding of the learned court below refusing permission to sell the minor's property is upheld, and the present appeal is hereby dismissed. October 1, 2026 Mukesh FAFO No. 2813 of 2026 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad