Property : Minor : Permission for sale of immovable property of minors can be granted only if in the interest of minors : Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, S. 8.

The petitioner filed a petition u/s.8 of the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act seeking permission to sell immovable property belonging to
her minor sons, which came to their share by inheritance. The daughter of the
petitioner was also having right by birth in the property inherited from Babu
Aade, husband of the petitioner and father of the minor children Krishna,
Ratansingh (Sons) and Mangala Aade (daughter). Permission was refused by learned
District Judge on the ground that besides the two sons, one daughter of the
petitioner also had share in the property, but the petitioner signed on her
behalf as a consenting party without the permission of the Court, which was
mandatory and as such excluding the name of the minor daughter was an attempt to
ignore her interest.

Perusal of the provisions of S. 8 of the said Act would show
that 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 estate. The import of this Section is that protection of the interest of
minors alone should be the necessary criteria. Further, Ss.(2) of S. 8 of the
said Act specifically bars the natural guardian to mortgage or charge, or
transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable
property of the minor, or lease out any part of such property for a term
exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date
on which the minor will attain majority or disposal of the immovable property,
etc., without permission of the Court.

On appeal the Court observed that the petitioner had signed
as consenting party on behalf of daughter who is minor. It is nowhere the say of
the present petitioner that she sought permission u/s.8 of the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956 before signing as consenting party, because such
permission was mandatory.

The Court held that the claim of the petitioner that she
wants to sell the property which is standing in the name of her minor two sons
is erroneous because apart from these two sons, daughter of the petitioner,
namely, Mangal Aade has also right in the said property.

While giving consent on behalf of the minor daughter Mangal
Aade in the partition deed, the petitioner had not sought any permission from
the Court and the permission which is applied for the sale showing only two
minor sons as holders of the property and excluding the minor daughter, is also
an attempt by the petitioner to ignore completely the interest of the minor
daughter. The petition which was filed by the petition u/s.8 of the said Act
totally ignoring the interest of the minor daughter was rightly rejected by the
District Judge. The petitioner had acted in suspicious manner and excluded the
interest of the minor daughter.