Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.M. KHAZI, JJ.
Master M. Yashas (Minor), Son of Sri. Mahesh B. & Smt. Soumya N. - Appellant
Versus
-Nil- - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.1990 OF 2021 (GW)
Decided On : 23-04-2021
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act - Permission to Sell Property - Section 8(2)(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - [Section 8(2)(a)] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, which deals with the powers of natural guardians. It highlighted that a guardian of a minor has no authority to alienate or dispose of the minor’s property without the permission of the Court, and any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of the Act is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. The court emphasized that the Court may grant permission to alienate the minor’s property only for his legal necessity or benefit to the estate. It concluded that the intended alienation of the property in this case was not for the benefit to the estate of the minor and that there was no justification for interfering with the trial Court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, mother of the minor child, sought permission to sell the property standing in the name of her minor son under Section 8(2)(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, to use a portion of the sale proceeds for the minor's expenses and to deposit the balance in his name. The trial Court dismissed the petition, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the intended alienation of the property was not for the benefit to the estate of the minor and that there was no justification for interfering with the trial Court's decision to refuse permission and dismiss the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant, as the guardian of the minor, should be granted permission to sell the property for the purpose of utilizing a portion of the sale proceeds to tide over the financial crisis faced by her and her husband, and to deposit the balance in the name of the minor child for his future use.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the intended alienation of the property was not for the benefit to the estate of the minor and that there was no legal necessity or evident advantage to the minor to justify the sale. Therefore, the trial Court's decision to refuse permission and dismiss the petition was upheld.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal assails the correctness of the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the IX Additional Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru in G & WC No.16/2020.
2. The said petition was filed by the appellant, mother of the minor child Master Yashas, who is aged about twelve years under Section 8(2)(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity), seeking permission to sell the petition schedule property standing in the name of her minor son and to use a portion of sale proceeds to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-derived from the said sale for use of the minor son for the purpose of meeting his day to day expenses, School expenses etc., and to deposit the balance sale proceeds in the name of her minor son. The trial Court by impugned order dated 28.01.2021 has dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal is preferred.
3. Though before the trial Court and in this appeal, it is shown as though the petition as well as the appeal is filed by the minor represented by his mother, in fact it is a petition filed by the minor guardian seeking permission to sell the petition schedule property. Therefore, wherever the word ‘petitioner/appellant’ is used, it refers to the guardian of the minor.
4. It is the case of the petitioner/appellant that she is the natural mother of the minor child Master Yashas. The mother of petitioner/appellant, Smt.M.R.Sunanda was the owner of Site No.29, Khata No.682, Assessment No.52/3A, situated at Karibovanahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. She gifted the same to the minor child Master Yashas vide registered gift deed dated 28.10.2014, showing the petitioner/appellant as his guardian and care taker till he attains majority.
5. It is further case of the petitioner/appellant that when the petition was filed the minor child Master Yashas was aged 12 years studying in Martin Luther English School. They are staying in a rented house on a monthly rental of Rs.7,500/-.
6. It is further case of the petitioner/appellant that she is a home maker and her husband was employed as a Driver on a monthly salary and on account of COVID-19 pandemic, he lost his job and they are not having any source of income to pay the rent, bear the monthly expenses and also to take care of the educational expenses of the minor child Master Yashas. That the owner of the house has directed them to vacate the residence as they have not paid the rents. To take a new premises on rent and also to take care of the minor child Master Yashas, they are not having any other source of income.
7. The petitioner/appellant has further contended that the petition schedule property is the only property that can be disposed of for the benefit of the minor and a portion of the proceeds would have to be used by the petitioner/appellant and her husband to tide over the current financial crisis faced by them. Then only the minor child be able to have a normal childhood and have an opportunity to succeed in his future life. If a portion of the sale proceeds are permitted to be used, the petitioner/appellant and her husband will be able to overcome their financial constraints and the same would ensure the welfare of the minor child.
8. The petitioner/appellant has further contended that if she gets a good purchaser, who intends to purchase the petition schedule property for an adequate consideration, she is ready and willing to sell the property on behalf of the minor and deposit the sale proceeds in a Nationalised Bank and utilise the same for the purpose of his welfare. The intended sale of petition schedule property is for legal necessity.
9. Thus, petitioner/appellant is seeking permission to sell the petition schedule property which belongs to her minor child Master Yashas and out of the sale proceeds utilise Rs.15,00,000/- for the immediate use of the minor for the purpose of meeting his day to day expenses, school fees etc., and to deposit the balance amount
The Court emphasized the limitations on the authority of a guardian to alienate or dispose of a minor’s property without the permission of the Court, and highlighted the requirement for such alienati....
Power to sell property belonging to minor – Court may grant permission to alienate minor’s property only for his legal necessity or benefit to estate.
When considering an application to alienate a minor's property under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the paramount consideration is the necessity or clear benefit to the minor. Judicial perm....
Permission to sell minor's property was granted due to financial necessity for education, emphasizing the child’s welfare over strict property ownership issues.
Right of natural guardian to alienate property – Natural guardian being eldest member of joint family, in-charge of property, can exercise powers to deal with minors in joint family property keeping ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
