This appeal arises out of the dismissal of the petition

filed under Section 8 (2) of the Hindu Minority and

Guardianship Act, by the learned LXII Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru by order dated

04-03-2017 in G & WC No.36/2016, whereby the request

for permission for selling the petition schedule property

standing in the name of minor Kum. Chinmayi was

rejected.

2. The parties will be referred to as per their

nomenclature before the Trial Court.

3. The facts that are necessary for adjudication of this

appeal are as below:

3

The minor child Kum.Chinmayi is arrayed as petitioner

No.1 and her natural guardian, father, Basavaraju P., is

arrayed as petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.2 is a practicing

Advocate and petitioner No.1 was born on 15-10-2008. On

10-11-2014,

petitioner

No.2

purchased

the

petition

schedule property measuring 02.4 guntas in Survey

No.15/3 (New Sy.No.15/6), which totally measures 01 acre

12 guntas, situated at Shivanahalli Village, Yelahanka-1

Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, for a consideration of

Rs.22,50,000/- under a registered sale deed in the name of

petitioner No.1. The said property was situated in the

middle of the said survey number and therefore, the owner

requested petitioner No.2 to give the said property on Joint

Development for constructing a multi-storeyed residential

complex. Since petitioner No.2 did not have any alternative

remedy and as the property was situated in middle of the

larger property, consented for the construction of the

building. Along with the petitioners the other owners of

similar piece of lands also entered into a Joint Development

Agreement with the builder on 23-05-2016. At the time of

4

the agreement, petitioner No.1 being a minor, the builder

insisted for obtaining permission of the Court as required

under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. It is stated

that petitioner No.2 is taking care of the petitioner No.1 in

all respects and the petitioner No.1 is the only daughter of

petitioner

No.2.

Under

the

said

Joint

Development

Agreement, petitioner No.1 was to retain 45% of the share

and the remaining 55% of the share would go to the

Developer and 45% of the share would consists of

residential flats that would be constructed in the property.

Therefore, petitioners No.1 and 2 approached the learned

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in G &

WC No.36/2016.

4. A citation was published in the news paper calling

for any objections by interested parties and none had

appeared contesting the petition.

5. During the enquiry, petitioner No.2 was examined

as PW1 and his wife i.e. mother of the petitioner No.1 was

examined as PW2. Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. After

5

hearing the arguments, the Trial Court dismissed the

petition. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the petition,

petitioners have approached this Court in appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel Sri.G. Balakrishna

Shastry, appearing for the appellants.

7. The only point that would arise for our

consideration is,

Whether the learned trial Judge erred in

not considering the fact that the construction of

the residential complex in the petition property

was for the benefit of the minor and as such,

the impugned order is incorrect?

8. The provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority

and Guardianship Act, provide for the powers of the natural

guardian, which reads as under:

"8. Powers of natural guardian.—

(1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has

power, subject to the provisions of this section, to

do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and

proper for the benefit of the minor or for the

realisation, protection or benefit of the minor’s

6

estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the

minor by a personal covenant.

(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 par