Allowed

Reena Mathew v. Nil

Kerala HC6 Apr 2022OP(C)/680/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the original petition filed by the mother to act as guardian for her minor autistic daughter. The court set aside the lower court's dismissal of an interim application and permitted the petitioner to sell a portion of the property (6 cents) for the child's treatment, subject to depositing the minor's share in a fixed deposit.

What did the court decide?

Permission to assign 6 cents of land from Schedule B of the minor's properties and deposit the proportionate share in a fixed deposit without violating earlier orders.

Reena Mathew Vs Nil — Succession and Inheritance | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

OP(C) NO. 680 OF 2022

¶6

IN GOP 43/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

REENA MATHEW,
AGED 45 YEARS,
WIFE OF MATHEW VARGHESE, RESIDING AT PANCHAMATTOM
VEEDU, PIRAVOM KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA
TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN OF VARKEY M.M.), PIN – 686662

¶9

BY ADVS.
PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
MARIYA P KOTTAM
AJMAL AHMED R.
ARJUN S BENEDICT

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

NIL

¶12

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

O.P(C)No.680 of 2022

¶14

¶15

K.BABU, J.

¶16

O.P(C). No.680 of 2022

¶17

Dated this the 6^th day of April, 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, the mother and natural guardian of minor Varkey M.M., filed O.P.(Guardian) No.43/2021 before the Additional District Court-V, Ernakulam, under Sections 8 and 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for appointing her as the guardian of the person and properties of the minor and permitting her to assign the share of the minor in the landed properties devolved upon them on the death of her husband.

¶20

'A' schedule property is 27 cents of land in Sy.No.747/3 of Piravam Village. 'B' schedule property is 11 cents of land in the same Survey Number.

¶21

The Court below allowed the petition as per order dated 10.12.2021. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

¶22

“In the result, petition is allowed as follows:-

¶23

The petitioner, Reena Mathew, wife of late Mathew Varghese is appointed as the guardian of the person and properties of the minor, M.M. Varkey.

¶24

The petitioner is granted permission to

¶25

O.P(C)No.680 of 2022

¶26

¶27

assign the share of the minor, M.M.Varkey along with her share in the petition schedule properties.

¶28

The petitioner shall deposit Rs.6,00,000/- being the sale proceeds in respect of the petition ‘A’ schedule property and Rs.3,90,000/- being the sale proceeds in respect of the petition ‘B’ schedule property due to the minor, M.M. Varkey (Rs.6,00,000/- + Rs.3,90,000/- = Rs.9,90,000/-) in a Nationalized Bank to her choice in the name of the minor, M.M. Varkey till he attains the age of majority. Such deposit shall be within one month from the date of sale of the petition schedule properties and she shall produce the deposit receipts before this Court forthwith.

¶29

The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.20,000/- undertaking to discharge her obligations in the name of Special Judge, Idamalayar Investigations/Addl. District Judge-V, Ernakulam within 30 days from this date for the approval of the Special Judge, Idamalayar Investigations/Addl. District Judge-V, Ernakulam.

¶30

The fixed deposit receipts has to be produced forthwith and shall be kept in safe custody.

¶31

A draft sale deed in respect of the petition schedule property shall be produced before this court for approval and execution shall be effected only after obtaining permission from the court.

¶32

Original sale deed as well as copy thereof shall be produced before this court within a period of one month from the date of execution of the sale deed and original sale deed will be returned after verification and execution of the bond, certified copy shall be kept along with FD receipts.”

¶33

The petitioner filed I.A.No.4 of 2022 (sic: I.A.No.5 of 2022)

¶34

seeking permission to sell 6 cents of land from the 'B' schedule

¶35

property and to deposit the proportionate amount towards the share of the minor. The Court below dismissed the application as per order

¶36

O.P(C)No.680 of 2022

¶37

¶38

dated 28.03.2022. The said order reads thus:

¶39

“Comply the order dated 10.12.2021 in GOP No.43/21 since there is no error apparent on the face of the record to review the order according to the whims and fancies of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has no case that there is any mistake or error apparent on the face of records so as to consider the application and to review the order dated 10.12.2021. Moreover in the petition and in the proof affidavit the petitioner categorically averred that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide any conditions imposed by the Court for the purpose of the petition without default. Hence this petition is only to be dismissed. In the result petition dismissed.”

¶40

Heard Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the minor is suffering from ‘Autism’. The petitioner had approached the Court seeking permission to sell the property to meet the expenses required for the treatment of the child. At the same time, the petitioner wanted to see that the value of the share entitled to the minor is preserved in a fixed deposit as directed by the Court below. The petitioner only wanted to utilise the value of the proportionate share due to her for the treatment of the child. It is further submitted that a prospective purchaser has come forward to purchase 6 cents of land from 'B' schedule property. Therefore, the petitioner sought permission from the Court below to assign the said 6 cents of land and to deposit the value of the proportionate share of the minor in a fixed deposit.

¶42

O.P(C)No.680 of 2022

¶43

¶44

This Court finds no reason to deny the relief sought by the petitioner as permitting her to sell a part of the property will no way affect the welfare of the minor and will not amount to transgression of the order passed by the District Judge. The petitioner has undertaken that she is prepared to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court below as per order dated 10.12.2021.

¶45

Resultantly, the Original Petition is allowed. Ext.P4 order in I.A.No.5/2022 stands set aside. The petitioner is permitted to assign 6 cents of land in Sy. No.747/3 of Piravam Village and to deposit the proportionate share of the minor as directed by the Court below. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions imposed by the Court below in its order dated 10.12.2021.

¶46

The Original Petition is allowed as above.

¶47

VPK

¶48

O.P(C)No.680 of 2022

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 680/2022

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶52

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER AS OP (GUARDIAN) NO. 43/2021
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
10.12.2021 IN G (OP) NO. 43/2021
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF I.A 4/2022 IN GOP 43/2021
FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE,
ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P4THE TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF
THE LEARNED DISTRICT COURT IN I.A 5/2022
IN GOP 43/2021

Reena Mathew v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Mathew v. Nil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padmakumari Vs N.Venugopal

K.Venkatramana Bhat Vs B.Krishna Pai

Bensy @ Bonefas Rodrigues Vs T.M.Koya

Shaji K.H Vs T. J. Thomas

Bijulal Vs Prakkulam Shri Gosthala Kavu Devi Kshethra Bharana Samithi Office

Deepa Vs K.M. Salomi