JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—The above-mentioned revisions were dismissed in open Court today for reasons to be recorded later on. My reasons for dismissing these revisions are as follows. 2. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tewari, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri A.P. Singh Gaur alongwith Sri Prashant Singh Gaur, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties 1 and 2. 3. The revisionist has assailed an order dated 5.5.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow rejecting the application/objections filed by one Sri Ram Krishna Gupta, challenging the sale of two plots by the natural guardian of two minor girls, on the ground that property was being sold at an inadequate price. 4. The respondent No. 1, Smt. Nootan Agarwal moved an application in the capacity of guardian of two minor girls (her own daughters) for selling the plots situate at Vivek Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The guardian of the children had indicated in her application seeking permission for the sale on the ground that she would purchase a flat in a multi-storeyed building, namely, Nakchhatra Apartments in Indira Nagar locality of the city of Lucknow for a sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- (thirteen lacs). The two plots were to be sold for Rs. 12,00,000/- (six lacs rupees per plot). Initially the application was rejected by the then Additional District Judge, Lucknow on 14.9.2005. The guardian moved an application seeking review of the order dated 14.9.2005. The review petition was allowed vide order dated 10.1.2006. The Court was of the view that Rs. 6,00,000/- per plot was adequate price as per circle rates for the plots situate in Gomti Nagar locality. The permission to sell the property was granted by the concerned Court and the guardian had taken advance from the purchasers and according to the learned Counsel for the respondents, a formal sale-deed has also been prepared and the same is to be presented before the Sub-Registrar for its formal registration. 5. When the permission was granted by the learned Additional District Judge to Smt. Nootan Agarwal, guardian of minors Km. Poorti Agarwal and Km. Bhawana Agarwal, the revisionist Ram Krishna Gupta entered the scene by moving an application raising objection against the permission granted by the competent Court. The revisionist has claimed himself to be a friend or well-wishers of the two minor girls as he wanted to offer Rs. 7,00,000/- per plot as price. Poorti Agarwal and Km. Bhawana Agarwal, the revisionist Ram Krishna Gupta entered the scene by moving an application raising objection against the permission granted by the competent Court. The revisionist has claimed himself to be a friend or well-wishers of the two minor girls as he wanted to offer Rs. 7,00,000/- per plot as price. He had also offered further higher price upto Rs. 9,00,000/- per plot. As per learned Counsel for the revisionist, he was also prepared to pay damages and interest, if any, on the advance, which was received by the guardian of the minor girls. The learned Court below rejected the application/objections of the revisionist, who had offered higher price for the two plots. Learned Additional Judge has indicated in the order dated 10.1.2006 that the permission to sale the property. 6. Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court as reported in 1996 ALR 24, Chittar Mal v. Jagannath Prasad and AIR 1918 All 94, Prem Sukh Das and another v. Lachmi Tewari, and a decision of Madras High Court as reported in 1988 ILR 12 Madras 148, Imami v. Kallu, in support of his submissions that this Court ought to have rejected the exercise of selling the property at lower price than the one what was being offered by the revisionist. No action can be taken by the guardian against the interest of her minors. the mother was not obtaining proper, adequate value of her daughters’ property. According to Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, the findings of the learned Court below have not been recorded in accordance with law and the same are perverse. The law is settled that welfare of a minor is to be paramount consideration. 7. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties have resisted the revision and drawn the attention of the Court to Sections 6, 8 and 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and various relevant provisions (Sections 28 and 31) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Counsel for respondents have laid stress that the grandmother of the children Km. Poorti Agarwal and Km. Bhawana Agarwal had bequeathed the property in their favour. Their real mother Smt. Nootan Agarwal is the guardian of the beneficiaries. After selling the plots for Rs. The Counsel for respondents have laid stress that the grandmother of the children Km. Poorti Agarwal and Km. Bhawana Agarwal had bequeathed the property in their favour. Their real mother Smt. Nootan Agarwal is the guardian of the beneficiaries. After selling the plots for Rs. 12,00,000/-, the guardian of the children made arrangements for buying a constructed flat in the Nakchhatra Apartments for Rs. 13,00,000/-. This scheme was prepared in the best interest of the minor girls and the same was approved by the learned Additional District Judge. It was difficult and unsafe for the guardian to leave the plots vacant. Such vacant plots are being encroached and grabbed by the unsocial elements, land-grabbers/land Mafias. Ready-made flat in an established residential area of Indira Nagar was the best option. The Court below has appreciated the proposal. Proper procedure was followed in this case by inserting notice in a daily newspaper. No one including revisionist had raised any objection to the notice issued in the daily newspaper. The Court has also considered the affidavit filed by the owner of Flat No. A-238, Nakchattra Apartments, who had deposed that the flat was to be sold in favour of Km. Poorti Agarwal, Km. Bhawana Agarwal and their mother Smt. Nootan Agarwal. It was also indicated before the Court that the Lucknow Development Authority had fixed a dead-line of the year 2007 for raising construction over the two plots and as such she thought of buying a constructed flat in Indira Nagar locality of Lucknow city. The Court has properly dealt with the submissions of the guardian and passed an appropriate order allowing permission to sell the property. The Court has taken due care and caution in granting permission to sell by indicating in the order that the sale-deed shall be approved by the Court; the sale proceed shall be deposited in a nationalized bank and after the flat is purchased by the guardian for the benefit of the children, the sale-deed shall be placed on record. The revisionists is a stranger and he has been unnecessarily causing hindrance in the sale of the property without having any direct interest in the property and concern with the welfare of the children. 8. The revisionists is a stranger and he has been unnecessarily causing hindrance in the sale of the property without having any direct interest in the property and concern with the welfare of the children. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and gone through the order dated 8.5.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, rejecting the application submitted by the revisionist and the order dated 10.1.2006 granting permission to the guardian of the children for sale of the property. Both the orders passed by the Court below are well-considered, reasoned and speaking orders. The Additional District Judge was empowered under law to grant permission to Smt. Poonam Agarwal, real mother of the two minor children Km. Poorti Agarwal and Km. Bhawana Agarwal. The revisionists Sri Ram Krishna Gupta admittedly is not related to the minor girls and their parents. He has claimed himself to be a friend of the minors and concerned with the welfare of the minor girls. Sri Kapil Kumar and Sri Ram Krishna Gupta, who have filed objections against the order granting permission to sell had offered higher price for the plots to the guardian Smt. Poonam Agarwal. In the present case, the minor girls’ own mother had decided to sell the vacant plots situate in Vivek Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to enable her to buy a ready-made, constructed flat in an established residential colony of Indira Nagar, Lucknow. She had already given advance to the purchaser and after making her contribution i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- had made necessary arrangements for buying a flat, apartment. On reaching such a stage, if the guardian had taken a turn around, the whole scheme could have flopped. Sri Ram Krishna Gupta, revisionist had nowhere offered a ready-made flat/apartment for the benefit of two minor children. One can gather from record that he was merely interested in buying plots of his choice and was trying to hit the interest of purchaser, who had already paid advance to Smt. Poonam Agarwal in furtherance of the deal already settled. The Court has recorded detailed findings of facts in arriving at a conclusion that buying a ready-made, constructed apartment in place of leaving two unguarded plots vacant was a wise decision. It was found to be in the interest of the minors. The Court has also indicated that close relatives are also living in the vicinity of the flat. 9. The Court has recorded detailed findings of facts in arriving at a conclusion that buying a ready-made, constructed apartment in place of leaving two unguarded plots vacant was a wise decision. It was found to be in the interest of the minors. The Court has also indicated that close relatives are also living in the vicinity of the flat. 9. It is noteworthy that the learned Additional District Judge after following due procedure had granted permission to sell the property on 10.1.2006. The revisionist had appeared on the scene when the sale of property was finalized and a sale-deed was prepared. In this case, the sale-deed has already been executed and it has been presented before the Sub-Registrar for formal registration. The Court has dealt with objections raised by Sri Ram Krishna Gupta, revisionist and one Sri Kapil Kumar who was also interested in the purchase of the property. The guardian had sold the property at the circle rate fixed by the District Magistrate (not below the reasonable price). The sale proceed has to be utilized for purchasing a constructed flat. Thus an appropriate ready-made accommodation, flat shall be available to the two minor girls and their natural guardian, the mother. The Additional District Judge has taken care of the interest of the children. The impugned order and the order granting permission for sale issued on 5.1.2006 contain findings of facts. This Court cannot be requested to make re-investigation and delve into the questions of fact and reappraisal of the evidence and material on record, vide P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478 , Kalpataru Vidya Samasthe v. S.B. Gupta, AIR 2005 SC 3458 and Balwant Singh v. Darshan Singh, (2005) 7 SCC 117 . This Court cannot sit in appeal against the order of the competent Court. The law is settled that in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Court, the High Court cannot sit in appeal against the order passed by the lower Court and cannot interfere with the pure findings of facts recorded by the lower Court and re-appreciate the evidence. I do not find any perversity in the findings. The Additional District Judge has carefully gone through the material on record and applied his mind to the facts of the case. He has properly appreciated the material on record. The order is well reasoned and well considered order. I do not find any perversity in the findings. The Additional District Judge has carefully gone through the material on record and applied his mind to the facts of the case. He has properly appreciated the material on record. The order is well reasoned and well considered order. In the present case, the learned District Judge has not acted without jurisdiction, nor there is any material irregularity or illegality in his findings. 10. In view of above, no interference is required. The revisions are dismissed. Revision Dismissed. ————