The provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act allow natural guardians to sell minor’s undivided interest in joint family property without court permission, provided it serves the minor's welfare.

ORDER :

Alok Awasthi, J.

With consent of the parties heard finally.

2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 8 (5) of the HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT , 1956 (in short "Act of 1956") being aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned First District Judge, Depalpur, District Indore in MJC No. 08/2024, whereby application filed by the appellant No. 3 - Natural guardian and mother of appellant Nos. 1 & 2 regarding permission to sell immovable property jointly recorded in the names of minor children and herself, was rejected.

3. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant No. 3, Smt. Savitri Bai, is the natural and legal guardian of the Appellant Nos. 1 (Kumari Roshni, aged 16 years) and 2 (Master Praveen, aged 14 years), who are minors. She is the widow of Late Shri Bharat Gehlot, who passed away on 02.03.2021. The marriage between Appellant No. 3 and Late Bharat Gehlot was solemnized according to the Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of this wedlock, the two children were born. After the sad demise of Bharat Gehlot, the family has been entirely dependent upon appellant No. 3.

4. Late Shri Bharat Gehlot, during his lifetime and from his self- acquired income, purchased two agricultural plots situated at Survey No.89/5 admeasuring 0.011 hectares (around 1200 Square feet) and Survey No. 89/6, admeasuring 0.011 hectares (around 1200 Square feet), in Village Kalibillod, Tehsil Depalpur, District Indore (M.P.). Vide order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Learned Naib Tehsildar, the said properties were mutated in the names of Appellant Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as his legal heirs. The total market value of the land is approximately Rs.16,08,000/-, as per government guideline rates. Further, due to the untimely death of her husband, appellant No. 3 has no source of income and is entirely dependent upon borrowed sums to manage household expenses, including the school fees and daily needs of her minor children. The appellant No.3 intends to relocate to near Indore City to provide a better environment and quality education

5. For the said purpose, the Appellant No.3 sought permission from the learned Court to sell the above-described immovable property. She undertook before the Court that the consideration from the sale would be exclusively used for the benefit and welfare of the minor children and further declared her willingness to abide by any condition imposed by the competent court.

6. Learned trial Court, vide order dated 30.06.2025, rejected the application on the ground that the present schooling details of the children were not specifically mentioned and that government schools are available in the village itself. The learned Court also observed that the application does not satisfy the test of “necessity” or “benefit” as required under Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, present appeal has been filed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial Court has gravely erred in law and on facts by rejecting the application, despite the undisputed financial hardship faced by appellant No. 3, a widow, and the natural guardian of two minor children, who is struggling to provide education and day-to- day sustenance. The learned trial Court has also not considered that the sole purpose of the proposed sale was to secure better educational opportunities and a dignified life for the minor appellant Nos. 1 & 2, which is paramount important under the Act. The impugned order was passed only on the ground of precise school details and without considering the broader circumstances that the current village lacks adequat