1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India praying for declaration that the respondents, their servants and agents have no jurisdiction to require the petitioners to obtain Court’s order merely for the purpose of registering the document and entering the same in the village records as and when presented for verification.

2. Heard Mr. D.V. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for Mr. N.P. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Rohan Yagnik, learned AGP for the respondent – State.

3. Mr. D.V. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the property in question does not belong to the minors and their names are only entered in village form 7 X 12 subsequently to show them as members of the family of an agriculturist. He has referred to Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, which are quoted below :

“8(1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor’s estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.

8(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court :

(a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or

(b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority.

(3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of subsection (1) or subsection (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or by any person claiming under him.”

He has submitted that perusal of the documents produced on record shows that minors are the children of the agriculturist and their names are entered in the 7 X 12 village form as members of the family of an agriculturist. He has submitted that the head of the family has purchased the property in his personal capacity and the same is also shown in the income-tax and wealth tax records as his personal property. He has submitted that it is not open for an authority to direct any person to obtain a Court’s order for execution of any document. He has drawn attention of the Court to the document at Annexure-C and submitted that when the provision of Section 8(3) of the Act is very clear, then, the authority cannot deny the registration of the document.

4. In support of the above submission, Mr. Parikh has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surta Singh vs. Pritam Singh, reported in AIR 1983 Punjab And Haryana 114, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under :

“To impeach a transfer of immovable property by the certificated guardian without the permission of a Court, the minor must sue within the prescribed period of three years after attaining majority. Once that is so a fortiori it follows that the position of a Hindu minor assailing a similar transaction of his natural guardian is no different and identical consideration would be applicable to the case under Section 8(3) of the 1956 Act. A transfer of immovable property by the natural guardian of a Hindu minor far from being void or being a nullity is in fact one which fully binds the other party. The minor can always avail the benefit thereof and after ratifying or accepting the same enforce the contract. Such a transaction is perfectly valid until duly avoided by the minor. Not only that precedent is unanimous that he can avoid the same only by restoration of any benefits received under such a transfer and if he does not choose to do so, the Court would refuse to avoid such a transfer. The minor is an co nominee party in the transfer made by the guardian on his behalf. The minor being co nominee party to the transaction which is merely voidable it can not lie