Natural guardians can manage minor's undivided interests in joint family property without court permission if it serves the minor's welfare.

JUDGMENT :

ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. This First Appeal From Order has been filed under Section 47 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1890’) assailing the judgment and order dated 17.07.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffar Nagar in G.C. Petition No. 249 of 2024 filed under Section 8/10 of the Act of 1890.

2. Brief facts, leading to filing of this appeal, are that appellant who is widow of Late Amit Kumar and mother of minor girl Kumari Vanshika had filed an application before Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar for declaring her guardian of minor daughter Vanshika and also prayer was made for permitting her to sell the property of the minor child mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’. In the said case, grandmother of minor child, Smt. Shakuntla Devi was arrayed as respondent. It was stated in the schedule that minor was having 1/4th share in the property described in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’. The respondent appeared before court below and filed her no objection stating that the appellant be declared as natural guardian and permission as sought be granted. However, the court below after hearing the parties partly allowed the application and appointed the appellant as guardian but did not grant permission to sell the land as mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the court below was not correct to refuse the permission for selling the land recorded in the name of minor having 1/4th share in the joint family property. According to him, refusal could not be made in view of Section 12 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act of 1956’). Reliance has been placed upon the decision of co-ordinate Bench rendered in First Appeal From Order No. 272 of 2024, Smt. Preeti Arora vs. Subhash Chandra Arora and another decided on 05.03.2024 and also upon a decision rendered by Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 2760 of 2024, Pooja vs. The State of Maharashtra , decided 24.02.2025.

4. Sri Rati Bhan Singh, learned counsel, has appeared on behalf of respondent and has supported the case of appellant and states that he has no objection in case the appeal is allowed.

5. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. Before adverting to decide the issue in hand, a cursory glance of some of provisions of the Act of 1890 and the Act of 1956 is necessary for better appreciation of the case.

7. The Act of 1890 was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to guardians and wards which was initially enacted in the year 1858 which was amended in the year 1864. In the said Act, Section 4(1) defines ‘minor’ which means a person who has not attained the age of majority under Indian Majority Act, 1875 while sub-section (2) of Section 4 defines ‘guardian’ meaning a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property, or of both of his person and property.

8. Section 7 provides for power of the Court to make an order as to guardianship. Section 8 entitles a person to apply for an order for being appointed as a guardian. Section 10 prescribes the format of the application to be moved by person claiming to be appointed as a guardian of a minor.

9. Section 29 limits the power of a guardian of a property appointed or declared by the Court. Sub-section (a) restricts that without previous permission of the Court, no mortgage or charge, or transfe