Family - Permission to alienate property - Petition filed under Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for permission to alienate the property of a minor, which was was "closed" by the Court below - Held, Section 31 of the Act stipulated that permission could not be granted except in a case of necessity or of evident advantage to the ward - Expression 'evident advantage' did not warrant a negative or narrow meaning - Test should be the approach of prudent man to the problem - If this test was applied, the Court below was not justified in insisting that permission could be granted only when the parents find out another property for purchase - Interest of the minor would not be jeopardised as the Petitioners had offered to deposit the sale proceeds in Court or in the manner directed by the Court - Courts should not take a rigid view in the matter - Court, after granting permission, could have seen that the money was utilised profitably or to the advantage of the minor by acquisition of any alternate property - Order of the Court below set aside - Appeal allowed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.F.A. 935 of 1994
Decided On: 23.12.1994
In Re: Tomy George
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.T. Thomas and P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, JJ.
Author: P.V. Narayanan Nambiar, J.
Citation: MANU/KE/0224/1994
Print Page