NAYYER ZAHOOR vs PUBLIC AT LARGE Ss — 2025 CLC 1620 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

NAYYER ZAHOOR VS PUBLIC AT LARGE Ss. 27, 28 & 29---Duties / powers of guardian of property---Scope---Alienation of immovable property by legal guardian---Application for permission to sell property filed by guardian/mother was declined by the Guardian Court---Validity---Sections 27, 28 and 29 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as well as Para No. 362 of Principles of Muhammadan Law postulate that guardian has an authority to sell the property for fulfilment of necessities of minors or where it is necessary to do so for the maintenance of minors---In the present case, appellant (mother/applicant) categorically stated in application that monthly expenses of minors are more than one lac and she has no source of income, thus, for giving better future it is necessary to sell the property---Every contract entered into by a near guardian on behalf and for the benefit of the minor and every contract entered into by a minor with the advice and consent of his guardian as far as his personal property is concerned, is valid and binding upon him provided there be no circumvention or fraud on the face of it---The underlying principle would be the rule of absolute necessity and benefit, for example the ailment of mother/guardian and daily expenditure which could be meted out of the sale of their immovable property only---In case of absolute necessity or clear benefit to the minors, a legal guardian can alienate immovable property belonging to him/her---Thus, the enumerated instances are illustrative of a basic rule of absolute necessity and benefit of the minor---It is the parents who built property, bank balance, etc., for giving better lives to their children---If the question of maintenance of minor occurs, then whatever parents earn would be spent for fulfillment of necessities of minor/ child---Hence, the Guardian Court committed grave error while dealing with the matter by not considering that guardian wanted to sell the property just to fulfil the needs of minors---High Court set-aside impugned order passed by Guardian Court; consequently, the guardian was at liberty to sell the property of minors---Appeal, filed by guardian / mother, was allowed accordingly.

NAYYER ZAHOOR vs PUBLIC AT LARGE Ss — 2025 CLC 1620 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC