A recurring question asked in property transactions is whether a prior permission of the District Court or the Family Court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA) is required when a property involving a minor’s interest is proposed to be sold.Section 8 of the HMGA stipulates that a natural guardian of a Hindu minor shall obtain prior Court permission for dealing with a minor’s property. However, such permission is often not taken seriously in practice. An alienation without permission is made voidable and not void. It is only at the instance of the minor (on attaining majority) or any person claiming under the minor, that such a voidable transaction can be challenged. The question of limitation would also come into play if a minor, after attaining majority, has to challenge the alienation made by the natural guardian. This article focusses solely on the threshold issue of whether Court permission is required at all before selling a property involving a minor’s interest. Section 8 of HMGA has often been mistakenly applied even to cases where the property is not the minor’s exclusive property.
In this context, Section 12 of the HMGA assumes significance. Section 12 stipulates that no guardian need be appointed to a minor who has an undivided interest in the joint family property and the property is under the management of an adult member. Since Section 8 does not distinguish between different types of property, the question that therefore arises is whether the rigours of Section 8 HMGA can be extended to transactions involving a minor’s undivided interest in the joint family property?
This issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narayan Bal and Others vs. Sridhar Sutar and Others, 1996 INSC 146. The Supreme Court observed that an adult member of a family holding management of the joint family property need not necessarily be a karta and may either be a male or female. The Court held that no permission under Section 8 of the HMGA is required when the joint family property is being sold by the Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or by any person managing the property on behalf of the family, even if a minor has an undivided interest in such property. The rationale is that the minor does not own a defined or separate share in joint family property. The minor’s interest is fluctuating and subject to survivorship.In such cases, the transaction is governed by the Hindu Succession Act relating to joint family property, and not by Section 8 of the HMGA. The Karta or any adult member of the family managing the property is competent to alienate joint family property for legal necessity, benefit of estate, or indispensable duties, without seeking prior Court approval.
Where a property forms part of joint family property and is sold by the Karta or an adult manager, the mere existence of a minor’s interest does not attract Section 8 of the HMGA. Applying Section 8 mechanically to such transactions is legally incorrect and contrary to settled jurisprudence.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
