Syndicate Bank, Palwal whereby defendant Umlesh deposited the said amount of Rs.5 lacs in her two saving bank accounts. Defendants had taken the plea of agreement to sell to be a forged and fabricated document, however, they led no evidence by examining any Expert or other witness to disprove the agreement to sell (Ex.P1) and receipt (Ex.P2). The learned trial court on the basis of evidence adduced by the plaintiff as also by the fact that the stamp papers were purchased by defendants themselves and also the document contained photographs of defendants 1 and 3 falsified the stand of the defendants-vendors, held that the case of the plaintiffs stood proved, although granted the alternative relief on the ground that no prior permission was obtained from a Court as contemplated under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,1956 so as to safeguard the interest of the minor child. However, the learned lower Appellate court in the opinion of this Court has rightly decreed the suit in toto since in the facts of the case it could not be construed that the interest of the minor was not watched by the real mother of the minor. Said fact is coupled with the fact that an order dated 14.6.2008(A-1) was passed much prior to the filing of the suit whereby permission to sell the share of the minor in the projected need was duly granted. Merely because only an agreement to sell had been inked on 3.3.2008 and on that date no application for seeking permission to sell the share of the minor was pending or decided, would not provide the basis for the courts not to
