A natural guardian's petition to dispose of minor's property cannot be denied based solely on the guardian's financial stability; necessity or evident advantage for the minor remains paramount.

JUDGMENT :

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. Notice of the present appeal has been served upon the respondents No. 2 to 5. However, there is no contest to the reliefs which are sought by the appellant as is evident from the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-03, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

2. Hence, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the record, this Court proceeds to decide the present appeal under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardship Act, 1956, [HMGA] read with Section 47 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, moved on behalf of the appellant to set-aside/modify the order dated 02.09.2024, passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the appellant/petitioner was seeking permission to sell, alienate or dispose of the shares of her two minor children, in the said property left behind by her husband being their mother and natural guardian had been dismissed.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is submitted that Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who was the mother-in-law of the present appellant, was the absolute owner of the property bearing No. 89, Jagriti Enclave, Delhi- 110092 measuring 183.40 sq. meters, which she had purchased from Sh. Manoj Monga s/o Sh. Janak Raj Monga and Sh. Sunil Kumar Gumber by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 24.05.2002 registered as document No. 2702 in Additional Book No.1, Volume No. 633 on page 69 to 77 with the office of Sub-Registrar-VIII, Delhi.

4. It is stated that Smt. Shakuntla Devi during her life time executed her last registered Will and testament dated 11.01.2021 thereby bequeathing the right, title and interest in respect of the aforesaid property in favour of her son Pankaj Gupta and daughter Chhavi Gupta (respondent No.2).

5. It is claimed that Smt. Shakuntla Devi had executed the said Will in perfect health and sound disposing state of mind. It is pertinent to mention that Smt. Shakuntla Devi was survived by two sons, namely Pankaj Gupta and Vinay Gupta, besides daughter Chhavi Gupta (respondent No.2), but unfortunate as it appears that after her death on 19.04.2021, both the sons also passed away in a short span of time: Vinay Gupta passed away on 26.04.2021 and Pankaj Gupta passed away on 01.05.2021. The appellant is the wife of deceased Pankaj Gupta and who is survived by two minor children namely Adya Gupta, aged about 15 years and Vaibhav Gupta, aged about 14 years.

6. The respondent No.3 happens to be the brother of the present appellant. Respondent No.4 is the brother-in-law i.e. husband of respondent No.2 and Vandana Gupta is the daughter-in-law of the deceased Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who is arrayed as respondent No.5. The appellant is claiming right, title and interest in the aforesaid property alongwith her two children to the extent of her ½ share, and therefore, instituted a petition under Section 8 of the HMGA seeking permission to dispose of the share of her two children in the aforementioned property out of sheer necessity and for bringing about financial advantage to her children.

7. It appears that the learned Trial Court interacted with the minor children during the course of trial on 22.05.2024. The learned Trial Court also called upon the appellant to file an affidavit detailing her movable and immovable assets as well as that of the minor children which was placed on the record and marked as Ex.PW1/7.

8. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce the reasons which prevailed in the mind of the learned Trial Court while dismissing the petition:-

“19. Therefore there are two guiding principles for the court granting permission to the natural guardian for the disposal of immovable property of minor which are “necessity” or “for an evident advantage to the minor”