SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Janakba Ugamsinh Sodha, W/o. Late Shri Ugamsingh Sodha & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
All Citizen of India - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 323 of 2023
Decided On : 23-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shyam Paliwal, Mr. Sameer Pareek, Mr. Vishal Thakur.

IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to permit the natural guardian to lease out the minor's property for a period exceeding the date of attaining majority if it is deemed to be in the welfare of the minors.

Headnote:

Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act - Lease of Property - The court allowed the natural guardian mother to lease out the property of the minor wards for their welfare, despite the lease period exceeding the date of attaining majority by the minors.

Fact of the Case:

The mother, as the natural guardian, sought permission to lease out the property of the minor wards for a period of 30 years to secure a permanent source of income for the welfare and upbringing of her children. The court below declined the request, citing lack of evidence for the necessity of the lease for the welfare of the minors.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lease, if permitted, would assist the single mother in providing better educational and living facilities for her children, and thus, would be in the welfare of the minors. The court allowed the appeal and modified the order to allow the lease as prayed for.

Issues: The main issue was whether the lease of the property by the natural guardian mother for a period exceeding the date of attaining majority by the minors was essential for the welfare of the minors.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956, which requires the previous permission of the court for leasing any part of the minor's property for a term exceeding five years or extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority. The court held that the lease, if permitted, would be in the welfare of the minors, and thus, allowed the appeal.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, affirmed the order declaring the mother as the guardian of the minor children, and directed that the natural guardian mother would be entitled to enter into the lease of the land falling in the share of the minors as prayed for, subject to the conditions imposed by Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer in Civil Misc. Case No.282/2021 (CIS No.63/2021) whereby the application under Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Section 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 preferred by the appellants applicants has been partly allowed.

Vide the order impugned, although the applicant mother Jankba has been declared the guardian of the minor wards (applicant Nos.2 to 4) but the permission to lease out the property in question (belonging to the share of minors) by the natural guardian mother has been declined.

2. The Court below declined the said prayer on the ground that there was nothing available on record to show the necessity why the applicant mother wanted the property to be leased out. The Court further observed that the lease in question is sought to be entered into for a period of 30 years which is a period beyond the date of attaining of the majority by the minor wards. With the finding that the applicant failed to prove that the lease in question was for the welfare of the minor wards, the Court declined the request as made by the mother.

3. Aggrieved against the said order, the present appeal has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the application preferred before the Court below, specific averment had been made that the property in question is not a fertile land and does not fetch any amount vide irrigation/agricultural purposes. It has further been submitted that the mother, along with her three wards, is residing at Kutch-Bhuj, Gujarat and working as a labour and hence, if the property in question is leased out, it would fetch a handsome amount and would help out the applicant mother to bring up her children with better education and living facilities.

In the appeal, the details of the educational status of all the three minors have also been furnished.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment dated 30.03.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.840/2021 (Jhammu Kanwar vs. All Citizens of India) whereby the Court, in the welfare of the minor wards, granted the permission to the natural guardian mother to sell out the property in question.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.

6. Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 provides as under:-

“(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”

A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if a property of a minor is to be leased out for a term exceeding 5 years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority, the previous permission of the Court is essential. Meaning thereby, if the lease is to be executed for a period of less than 5 years, the permission of the Court is not mandatory.

7. A bare perusal of the grounds as raised in the appeal and the facts as stated makes it clear that all the three wards are minors of less than 14 years of age. As evident from the record, the grandparents of the children are also not alive and except the natural guardian mother, there is no other person to take care of them.

As stated in the appeal, all the three children are staying at Kutch-Bhuj, Gujarat and it is quite natural that a single mother, that too working as a labourer, would find it difficult to provide better educational as well other facilities to the children without having any permanent source of income. The mother, if, vide the lease in question, g

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top