JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - The order challenged in this appeal was passed by the Court below on an application by the guardian for permission to transfer the property of a minor. 2. The appellants' grievance is that while disposing of this application the Court has neither recorded a finding that the minor was really suffering from heart ailment and required expensive treatment for it nor the Court has given necessary and complete directions as are required u/s 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 3. The relevant facts in brief are; that the father of the minor having died nearly four years ago the mother and the minor are both residing with their father and maternal grand-father in an adjoining district. During these four years, the appellant No. 1 who is the real uncle of the minor, is in possession of the property and there is no evidence on record even to suggest that any profit from the income pertaining to the minors' share has been paid either to his mother or to the minor. It appears that the appellant alone is enjoying the benefits of the entire land including the share of the minor. 4. Admittedly, the minor is hardly seven years of age and the allegation about his heart ailment has not been specifically contested by the appellant. On the question of need the appellants' case is that instead of sale the land be given on lease to the appellant No. 1 himself and if sale is considered necessary then he himself was ready to purchase it. He, however, contended that the mother in no case be permitted to sell it. His apprehension appears to be that being hardly 35 years' old she may remarry and then misappropriate minor's entire money. He himself suggested that the Court may itself auction the property and the entire sale consideration be deposited in Court from which the mother may be allowed to withdraw only so much of the amount as may require for minors' use. 5. On the evidence on record the Court came to the conclusion that the minor was in fact suffering from heart ailment and since the money is required for his treatment the mother should not be permitted to transfer the minors property. 5. On the evidence on record the Court came to the conclusion that the minor was in fact suffering from heart ailment and since the money is required for his treatment the mother should not be permitted to transfer the minors property. The appellant who was in possession of the entire land and he had forced the minor and his mother out of village so that he could reap the entire benefits from the land without paying anything to the minor towards his share therein. On these findings the Court has allowed the application .and permitted the mother to sell the property but only to a person who bids the highest amount in auction sale conducted by the Court as per Section 31(3)(b). 6. In view of the nature of the order passed by the Court below the first objection of the appellant does not stand. As for the second leg of his argument it can certainly be said that the Court has not passed a complete order arid it would have been appropriate if the Court had indicated how the money realised by auction sale is to be utilised and by whom and the manner in which the same will be accounted for. However, we have no reason to entertain a doubt that the Court did not pass any further order because it expected that first the sale consideration should come under its control and only then proper stage for disbursing the money and to pass appropriate order in that regard will come. Although, the Court would have been better advised to pass a complete order in the first instance without waiting for the realisation of the auction money by sale of the property but this omission in our opinion is not fatal so as to upset the impugned order. 7. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed at the stage of admission. We, however, direct that the Court will now pass an appropriate order as to how the money realised from sale of the minor's property will be spent, the parson who will be accountable for it and In what way.