Permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is not required for the disposal of a minor's undivided interest in joint family property managed by the Karta.

ORDER :

1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr.Dash, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr.Pattanaik, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Mr.Das, learned counsel for Respondent No.1.

3. The order dated 2^nd January, 2024 of learned District Judge, Khordha at Bhubaneswar passed in GUA (P) 21 of 2023 by the Petitioners are challenged in the present appeal.

4. The admitted case of the parties is that, they are Hindus and governed under Hindu Mitakshara School. The suit scheduled property was purchased by the grandfather of the minor child. After death of the grandfather namely Sibanath Satapathy, the property was inherited by his son Suranjan Satapathy and daughter Anjali Satapathy. Appellant No.1 (minor) is the son of Suranjan Satapathy and Appellant No.2 is his widow. After death of Suranjan Satapathy entire suit property was recorded in the name of the Appellants and Respondent No.2 (Anjali Satapathy) jointly.

5. Permission under Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 was sought for in respect of the minor son (Appellant No.1) namely, Saugat Satapathy on the ground of legal necessity for the required educational expenses.

6. The law is well-settled on the point that in respect of joint Hindu Family property the permission is not required under Section 8 (2) for the minor child.

7. In the case of Narayan Bal & Ors. v. Sridhar Sutar & Ors. (1996) 8 SCC 54 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court have interpreted the provisions under Section 6 & 8 of the HMG Act, 1956 and observed as follows:-

5. with regard to the undivided interest of the Hindu minor in joint family property, the provisions afore-culled are beads of the same string and need to be viewed in a single glimpse, simultaneously in conjunction with each other. Each provisions, and in particular Section 8 , cannot be viewed in isolation. If read together the intent of the legislature in this beneficial legislation becomes manifest. Ordinarily the law does not envisage a natural guardian of the undivided interest of a Hindu minor in joint family of the property. The natural guardian of the property of a Hindu minor, other than the undivided interest in joint family property, is alone contemplated under where under his powers and duties are fined. Section 12 carves out an exception to the rule that should there be no adult member of the joint family in management of the joint family property, in which the minor has an undivided interest, a guardian may be appointed; but ordinarily no guardian shall be appointed for such undivided interest of the minor. The adult member of the family in the management of the Joint Hindu Family property may be a male or a female, not necessarily the Karta. The power of the High Court otherwise to appoint a guardian, in situations justifying, has been preserved. This is the legislative scheme on the subject. Under a natural guardian of the property of the Hindu minor, before the disposes of any immovable property of the minor, must seek permission of the court. But since there need be no natural guardian for the minor’s undivided interest in the joint family property, as provided under Sections 6 and 12 of the Act, the previous permission of the Court under for disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required.

The joint Hindu family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its Karta and other adult members of the family in management of the joint Hindu family property. Thus Section 8 in view of the express terms of Sections 6 and 12, would not be applicable where a joint Hindu family property is sold/disposed of by the Karta involving an undivided interest of the minor in th