Grandfather(Name: Ayyasamy-67 years old) purchased an immovable property for his grandson some 6 years back from his own source. The purchase document was signed by Grandfather only. Since, the grandfather intend to sell the property to 'A'(Name: Antony), he(Petitioner) filed a petition before the Court(1st Additional District Judge,Madurai) u/s 8 of Guardians and Wards Act seeking permission to sell the property to 'A'(Name: Antony. He is the respondent in the petition). The natural guardian of the grandson also filed 'consent affidavit' before the Court to sell the said immovable property by the grandfather( of the minor son of the natural guardian). The Court after following all the legal necessities granted permission to sell the property to 'A' within three months and also directed to deposit the sale proceeds in the Court. I herewith reproduce the order portion of the judgement " ...in the presence of Tr.A.Suwatheeswaran,advocate for the petitioner and Thiru V.R.Veludoss,counsel for the respondent and having stood over till this date for consideration after hearing argument on the side of the petitioners this court doth order and decree as follows: i. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed. ii. that the petitioner is permitted to sell the schedule mentioned property of the minor Adhithi Sathishkumar not less than the value of Rs.3,00,000/- whithin the period of 3 months and directed to produce the copy of the sale deed within 3 months before this court for record purpose and to deposit the sale amount in the court in the name of Principal District Judge, Madurai for depositing in any one of the nationalised bank and the petitioner is permitted to take the interest amount directly from the bank till the minor attains majority. iii. that there is no order of cost." Subsequent to the Court's permission, 'A' declined to purchase the property for his own reason.As such the sale transaction was not materialised. Therefore, Grandfather approached "B"(Name: P.Sankaralingom) for the sale of the said property to 'B". 'B' agreed to purchase the property. But insisted the grandfather to get permission from Court specifically in his name (i.e.'B'). Hence, grandfather, in continuation of original petition( for which permission has already been granted to sell the property to 'A'), filed a petition before the same Court seeking permission to sell the property to 'B'( i.e.requested to change the name of purchasor "A" to "B"). He also filed another petition for condoning the delay of sale with the request for granting permission to sell the property to 'B'. After hearing the case, the Court returned the above mentioned two petitions with the noting by the Judge himself with his signature in the two petitions that "GWOP 6/12(Case Number of the original case filed and ordered judgement) ordered and permission granted dt.16.12.2013. How this application is maintainable?. Returned" . (Please note that 'this application' means the new petition filed by the Grandfather seeking permission to sell the property to 'B') In this juncture, the Grandfather requested 'B"(New person offered for purchase) to purchase the property stating that the hurdles in respect of sale transaction is settled by the Court. But, 'B' is afraid of that if 'B' purchases the said property, whether the "sale title" will be legally valid or not. In the circumstances, the legal opinion requested is that " Whether the said property can be purchased by 'B'?. Whether it is legally valid one? If not, what are the legal remedies to validate the proposed purchase of the said property from the grandfather. Please furnish legal opinion with supporting evidences.If any further explanation required, I will be ready to furnish the same[My Mobile No.is 9445953237(Madurai,Tamil Nadu)]. Kindly help.
First answer received in 10 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
1) since court has in principle granted permission to grand father to sell the property grand father can sell the same provided sale proceeds are deposited in court .
2) after deal with A collapsed grand father had made application to sell property to B but court has passed order that once sale permission is granted on 16/12/2013 petition is not maintainable .
3) as long as sale proceeds are deposited in court B can purchase the property .
1. In terms of the consent affidavit filed by the natural guardian of the minor the grand father was given permission to sell the property.
2. The court had directed the grand father to sell the property within a period of 3 months from the date of its order and deposit the sale proceeds in the court, which part of the order could not be complied with as A backed out of the sale.
3. You should note that in the original petition filed under the Guardianship Act, grand father had sought to sell the property to A. B was not a party in the original petition. The judgment of court, if literally interpreted, can be seen only as a permission granted to grand father to sell the property to A who was a party to the petition. B did not figure anywhere in the first petition.
4. Now if the property is sold to B without fresh permission from the court, it may be successfully challenged by either the minor herself on attaining majority or by her natural guardian. It is in B's interest to purchase the property only after the court allows the grand father to sell it to B.
Hi,
1. By the first order the permission to sell the property is granted to the grandfather and the time elapsed and the party 'A' backed out, if the order was to only sell to A as he was a party and time bound now it is ineffective.
2.the interpretation of the judgement with the special noting of the judge or the first one can be analysed after seeing the judgement only. From your narration it is understood that the order was given to grand permission to sell to 'A ' in 3 three months. hence if the sale has not happened in three months time with A the order has no effect unless court has directed for sale to any other prospective purchaser. I understand that the permission to sell is ineffective as the time elapsed and needed a fresh permission to sell to the prospective purchaser.
3. So the second petition was not maintainable as by the court order, grand father has already granted permission to sell, and three months time given cannot be condoned . if the court returned the petitions with noting " as not maintainable", there should be allover again afresh petition filed to obtain permission to sell to any other purchaser including B
Hi, as the court has already granted the permission to sell the property and in the first instance "A" has not come forwarded to purchase the property so now "B" can buy the property and there is no need for the petitioner to seek permission again in favour of "B".
Hello,
1) If one goes strictly by the Order of the court when the permission was sought for the first time the sale can not be done to B as the order was specifically for sale to A.
2) It would be proper therefore for B to buy only after a permission to that effect was obtained from the court.In other words it is unwise for B to purchase and grandfather to sell as well as this transaction can be questtioned or challenged at a later stage as it would be deemed a violation of the court order as well.
Sir, please consider the petition for seeking permission to sell the property to 'B' and another petition for condoning delay filed by the grandfather afresh and both the petitions were returned on the same date with the noting of the Judge with his signature in the petitions itself as "GWOP 6/12 already ordered and permission granted dt.16.12.2013. How this application is maintainable.Returned". Please reply your kind opinion on this point".
Sir,please consider the petitions for seeking permission to sell the property to 'B' and another petition for condoning delay filed by the grandfather afresh which were returned with the noting of the Hon'ble Judge with his signature in the petitions itself as "GWOP 6/12 already ordered and permission granted dt.16.12.2013. How this application is maintainable.Returned". Please reply your kind opinion on this point". So, the Grandfather filed petition for selling the property to 'B and also another petition for condoning delay which were returned by the Judge with the noting mentioned above. Please reply on this point.
Hi, Hon'ble Court while passing an order the court has to pass an order in detail and court may dismiss your application but court don't have the power to returned the same.
2. You have to file an appeal against the order passed by the Hon'ble Court to the High Court.
1. File a fresh petition praying for permission for selling the property to B within next 3 months band if B backs out you are at liberty to sell the said property to anybody with in next 6 months,
2. It appears that the Court has erred in passing the said order.
1) court has in principle granted permission to grand father sell the property to A and deposit sale proceeds in court
2) the deal with A did not materialise .application was made to court to permit sale of property to B
3) court has passed order in 2 petitions that permission has already been granted for sale of property . in other words no fresh permission is necessary .
4) so property can be sold by grand father to B provided sale proceeds are deposited in court .
5) to be on safer side have the papers produced before the court for speaking to the minutes of order .
6) request court to clarify that property can be sold by grand father to any other purchaser
1. You should now file a fresh petition explaining that it has been clearly mentioned in the 1st order that the property can be sold to A only with in 3 months which needs to be ammended by mentioning that it can be sold to anybody including B and the time period for effecting the sale should be extended to next 3 months,
2. Without this ammended order or fresh specific order, it will be unwise for B to purchase the said property.
1. The court order binds only those who were parties to the first petition under GWA. It is not disputed that B was not a party to the first petition wherein the court ordered grand father to sell the property to A and deposit the sale proceeds in the court within 3 months.
2. The sale was ordered to be made in favour of A and not B as B was not a party to the first petition under GWA. When sale was not allowed in favour of B the question of condonation does not arise. Condonation would have been required if the sale was to be made in favour of A and it could not be made within 3 months as mandated by the court.
3. Although the court while returning the subsequent petition under GWA has stated that permission has already been granted, but this summary finding of the court will not protect the title of B if there is a subsequent challenge by the grand daughter or her natural guardian to the sale made in his favour.
If B wants to purchase the property he should require the grand father to seek fresh permission from the court to sell the property to him. If I were in B's shoes this is what I would do.
Hi
1. File a fresh petition under guardian ship act and seek permission t sell the minor's property as it is required to ensure the new purchaser's (B)legal right in terms of a safe title..
There is no other option other than seeking permission a fresh.
the application returned saying not maintainable as it had granted permission already is not any continuing effect on the first order of permission to sell.
The first order or the party involved has no relevance if the grandfather wants to sell the property to B or any other purchaser.The first order cannot be read as it is binding for ever till the sale takes place. It was only for sale concerning A and was time bound .
Hence afresh petition seeking permission to sell is the only way to go about it.