Sale of minors property by defecto guardian – Sale without legal necessity void or voidable. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, section 6, 11 & 12.

The undisputed facts are that, the land appertaining to the plots was the ancestral land of one Krutibas Das and stood recorded in his name. After the death of Krutibas and his wife, the property devolved on his two sons, namely, Banamali and Ramakanta as joint owners thereof, both having 50% share each. Ramakanta being a minor was being looked after by his major brother Banamali, who was managing the joint family properties including the undivided interest of Ramakanta. By registered sale deed, Banamali sold the entire disputed land of 40 decimals on behalf of himself and also as brother guardian in favour of one Agani Dash. Agani in his turn sold the disputed land to one Sanatan and the present petitioner, Kanehei by registered sale deed.

During the consolidation operation, the disputed land was recorded in the name of Sanatan Dash and Petitioner Kanehei. Ramakanta, the present opposite party No.1, filed objection claiming to record his half share in the disputed land in his name on the ground that his brother Banamali had no right to alienate his share.

The Hon’ble Court observed that, where the de facto guardian of a minor is also the Karta or Manager or an adult member of the joint family including the minor himself, for sale by him of the joint family property including the undivided interest of the minor in such property, no permission of the court is necessary. Such sale shall be governed by the uncodified Mitakshara School of Hindu law, according to which sale by the Karta or Manager of the Hindu Joint Family Property without any legal necessity or benefit of estate shall be voidable at the option of the minor with regard to his undivided interest.

Thus, the sale of the minors’ property, in contravention of section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Act, is void and invalid must be applicable to all properties of the minor except where the sale is by a Karta or Manager of a joint Hindu Family of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property. The voidability of the sale transaction could only be decided by the Civil Court and not the consolidation Authorities.

The finding of the Consolidation Authorities in the impugned orders that the sale of Ramakanta’s undivided interest in the disputed joint family property by Banamali was void and invalid being in contravention of Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 cannot be sustained.