ORDER 1. Heard. 2. By this appeal under section 47 (e) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 the appellant mother of two minor daughters is praying for setting aside the order dated 5.12.2014 passed by IX th Additional District Judge, Indore in Guardian Case No.46 of 2014, whereby the permission to sell the immovable property to natural guardian under section 8(2) of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was refused. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the husband of the appellant Mr. Vijay Chandorkar, is working as Regional Manager in Ultratech Cement, Ahmedabad. The appellant and her husband have two daughters one Namrata aged 16 years and second Nilanjana aged 12 years, their date of birth are 4.2.1998 and 8.5.2002 respectively. 4. It is argued that the appellant, her husband and two minor daughters have jointly purchased a plot No.33 Type-RIDA-Scheme No.77 through Registered Sale deed No.1-A/6062 dated 21.2.2007. The husband of the appellant took a house loan from HDFC Bank on the said plot and now entire loan has been paid off and the said property is free from all encumbrances. For higher studies of both the minor daughters, appellant had moved an application under sections 8 and 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act before the learned trial Court for taking permission to sell the property in question. 5. Learned trial Court considering the fact that no agreement was filed nor any material has been produced to show that they really wanted to send their both daughters out of India for under-graduation studies and, therefore, rejected the application by impugned order. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the application for taking additional documents by which they have entered into an agreement to sell of the property and submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the learned trial Court for taking the aforesaid subsequent event on record. As per date of birth it is not in dispute that the daughter-Namrata is now major and, therefore, no permission to sell the immovable property to natural guardian under section 8(2) of Guardians and Wards Act 1890 is required. 7. As per date of birth it is not in dispute that the daughter-Namrata is now major and, therefore, no permission to sell the immovable property to natural guardian under section 8(2) of Guardians and Wards Act 1890 is required. 7. On going through the record of the trial Court, statement of the appellant and other material, there is nothing that she got admission of their both daughters at higher University and, therefore, the appellant and her husband want to dispose of the property which is jointly in the name of the full family. No documents regarding salary of the husband, who is Regional Manager in Ultratech Cement, Ahmedabad has been filed to prove that he is not able to bear the expenses of the education of both the daughters. 8. It is well settled that the guardian cannot transfer the minor's property by way of sale or otherwise without Court's permission. Such permission should be applied bona fide by placing all material facts before the Court or not by concealment of facts. 9. Considering these facts and for the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court, we fully agree with the findings of the Trial Court which is based on appreciation of evidence on record. No case to remit the matter to the learned trial Court or set aside the impugned order, as prayed is made out. 10. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Appeal No.138 of 2015 has no merit and is dismissed. No costs. 11. I.A. No.7465 of 2015 stands rejected.