Permissibility of sale of land of minor.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal raises a question of great contemporary significance and some legal interest, though the facts themselves are extremely simple. The facts are that in I.A. No. 1289 of 1959 in O.P. No. 67 of 1953 on the file of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore, the present appellant (the property guardian of a minor) sought, under section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), for permission to sell 55 standard acres of the lands belonging to the minor. The legal principles which are applicable to the matter are clear, and not in dispute. The interest of this case arises, not from any difficulty with regard to the interpreta-tion of the sections of law, but from the peculiar and exceptional grounds upon which necessity for alienation was sought to be based. Section 31 of the same Act lays down that such permission ought not to be granted by the Court “except in the case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the ward.” Section 31, sub-sections (2) and (3) relate to the requirements that the order granting the permission should recite the necessity or advantage, and that conditions of special kinds may be attached to the permission of Court, at its discretion. We may conveniently note two other sections of the Act here. Section 27 lays down that a guardian of the property of the ward,

“is bound to deal therewith as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with it if it were his own, and subject to the provisions of this Chapter, he may do all acts which are reasonable and proper for the realisation, protection or benefit of the property” .

In other words, the guardian certainly has the power to alienate the property of the minor, if the conditions of prudence or necessity or benefit to the estate requires such alienation. Again, it is laid down under section 30 that

“ a disposal of immovable property by a guardian in contravention of either of the two last foregoing sections (28 and 29) is voidable at the instance of any other person affected thereby” .

In other words, the transaction is only voidable and not void, and there is no dispute that the Court should therefore grant the permission under section 29, if the proposal satisfies the test under section 31(1) of “necessity or for an evident advantage to the ward.”

In the present context, the property guardian (the appellant) filed this petition because of an impending piece of legislation fixing a ceiling upon the possession of landed property by any single individual in the State. Here, the facts are not in dispute that a declaration of the intentions of Government in this regard was made upon the floor of the Legislature, and that it was generally publicised that this land reform was imminent, and that the ceiling would be fixed at 30 standard acres or so. Further, the appellant had adequate grounds for the belief that compensation might be awarded only at Rs. 1,000 per acre for the lands taken over by Government, this amount also being distributed in payment over a period of years.

The appellant submitted to Court that the lands of the minor above this ceiling, consisting of both nanja and punja could be sold at current market value for Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 5,000 per acre. If this was not immediately done, the estate of the minor would suffer great injury if the land reform legislation were enacted, and the surplus of the estate above 30 acres or so taken away by Government, at the anticipated rates of compensation. This was, in brief, the broad grounds of the proposal. It appears to be indisputable that other persons owning such lands, who were sui juris and who could thus take effective action without formal Court proceedings, were actually engaged in reducing the sizes of their estates by sales, in conformity with the anticipated law.

In a brief order, the learned District Judge dismissed this application. He gave two grounds, therefor. The first was that “nothing definite is known about the anticipated legislation.” The