JUDGMENT & ORDER : TALAPATRA J. By means of this appeal filed under Section 47A of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 08.07.2016 delivered in Civil Misc (G/C) No. 2 of 2015 by the District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar. By the said judgment, the petitioner-appellant has been refused permission to sell the minor's properties as the appointed guardian. 2. From the judgment dated 08.07.2016 it is apparent that the petitioner-appellant has been appointed as the guardian of the minor namely Sayantika Dey but she has been denied to represent the minor in selling her share in the landed property appertaining to khatian No.615 of Mouja and Tahashil- Dharmanagar, Sub-Division-Dharmanagar in R.S. Plot No.8390 classified as vastu (tilla) measuring 0.037 acres as mentioned in Schedule-A of the said petition and khatian No.1895 of Mouja and Tahashil-Baruakandi, Sub-Divison- Dharmanagar in R.S.Plot No. 7762 classified as Nal, measuring 0.24 acres as mentioned in the Schedule-B of the said petition. 3. For the death of the husband of the petitioner [the appellant herein] namely Sri. Sajal Kanti Dey, the petitioner and her minor daughter have become the joint owner of the 1/5th share in the landed property as described in the Schedules-A & B. The petitioner had approached the District Judge for appointing her as the guardian and aid with authority to sell her own share by separating it from the share of the minor of the said landed property or to transfer otherwise. In addition it was urged to authorize her to sell the minor's share in the same manner. Even though the petitioner-appellant has been appointed the guardian off the ward, but restriction has been imposed on sale of the minor's share by the impugned judgment and order dated 08.07.2016. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 08.07.2016, the present appeal has been preferred basically on the ground that the finding as returned by the District Judge is grossly unreasonable as for passing the said finding the District Judge did not inquire how the appellant would maintain the minor in as much as the petitioner-appellant has no other means to maintain the minor. That is the reason why the petitioner had approached the District Judge to appoint her as the guardian of the said minor and to permit her to sell the share of the minor for maintenance. That is the reason why the petitioner had approached the District Judge to appoint her as the guardian of the said minor and to permit her to sell the share of the minor for maintenance. Her relation as it is stated, with the other co sharers is also not cordial. For this strained relation, it would be also difficult to maintain the possession in the joint property by her. 5. According to the petitioner-appellant, all these aspects were not considered and the District Judge was pleased to pass the impugned judgment by refusing the petitioner the permission for selling the share of the said minor in the property as descried in the Schedules- A & B. 6. Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel has appeared for the petitioner-appellant and submitted that except the said landed property the said minor does not have any other means of livelihood. The petitioner-appellant is living in her brother's house and she does not have any independent source of income. From the records as produced before us it surfaces that the joint property as described in the Schedules A & B has been demarcated by metes and bound by the surveyor as appointed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dharmanagar North Tripura. A copy of the said report was as well submitted in the Court below for perusal. 7. It appears further that by hand sketch map in his field book the surveyor has partitioned the said land and shown the share of the petitioner-appellant and his daughter separately under Section A whereas the other co-sharers respective shares are shown in sections B, C, E & D over the land described in the schedules A & B. It is on records that on the basis of the said surveyor's report the final decree has been passed on 27.11.2014 in TS.39 (part) of 2012. Thus the said division of shares has become final and the land shown in Section A in the surveyor's report has become the exclusive property of the petitioner-appellant and her daughter. 8. It has further surfaced that the petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was not opposed by any relative or person and the Court below has appointed the petitioner-appellant as the legal guardian of the minor namely Sayantika Dey. 9. 8. It has further surfaced that the petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was not opposed by any relative or person and the Court below has appointed the petitioner-appellant as the legal guardian of the minor namely Sayantika Dey. 9. On perusal of the records produced in the suit including the survey commissioner's report, this Court is of the view that the petitioner-appellant may be granted permission to sell the minor's property in the event of necessity, subject to the condition that the entire money that would be received as the consideration for selling the share of the minor daughter of the petitioner-appellant namely Sayantika Dey would be maintained in a fixed deposit in her name. The petitioner-appellant is allowed to draw interest accrued thereon from time to time till the minor attains her majority. The appellant i.e. the legal guardian of the said minor shall furnish a photo copy of the sale deed and the statement declaring the consideration money that she had received from the purchaser and the particulars of the term deposit that would be created in the name of the minor in the Court of the District Judge, in the form of the statement or account. It is directed or instructed that the interest as would be accrued on the said deposit shall be paid to the petitioner-appellant as the guardian of the minor. For this purpose the petitioner-appellant by virtue of this order can take all the necessary actions and do whatever is required for selling the share of the said minor in the Schedules A & B and also to create a term deposit in the name of the minor subject to the above direction. It is needless to say that the petitioner-appellant can sell out the land at a go with her share as well. In that case the proportionate share of the consideration money shall be deposited as the term deposit for drawing the interest therefrom periodically as per the standing direction as above from the concerned bank. The appellant shall maintain the account of spending from the minor property and such statement of the expenditure shall be submitted to the District Judge after every 2(two) years. Such statement shall be maintained with the records of T.S.39 (part) of 2012. 10. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Prepare the decree accordingly. Send back the L.C.Rs forthwith.