Sale of property of Minor – Court permission – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, section 8(4):

The applicant is maternal uncle of Ku. Kamna Satyanarayan Handibag. An application was filed by the respondent No.1 for sale of land in the name of Ku. Kamna, which had been allowed by the trial court. The said order was challenged on the ground that while allowing the said application, the trial court had not taken into consideration the interest of the minor child. It was also submitted that it was an admitted position that the said land was purchased by the respondent for Rs.4.00 lakh and the approximate value of the said land, in the application filed before the trial Court, was shown Rs.2.00 lakh. The applicant submitted that the fact that the said land was purchased for Rs.4.00 lakh and the respondent No.1 wants to sell it for just Rs.2.00 lakh, itself, shows that the respondent No.1 is not interested in protecting the interest of the minor and the Court had also not considered the interest of the minor. It was also submitted that, even the Court should have considered the provision of Sections 29 and 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that in view of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, it was incumbent upon the trial court to find out and make enquiry in depth on how the sale of the land standing in the name of the minor is going to be beneficial or advantageous to the child in future. The very fact that the land standing in the name of the minor was purchased at Rs.4.00 lakh and its approximate price is shown in the application as Rs.2.00 lakh itself is indicative of the fact that the respondent i.e. original applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands. That apart, a copy of notice received by the revision applicant in Misc. Application No. 18 of 2012 clearly indicated that, the custody of the minor is with the revision applicant i.e. maternal uncle of Kum. Kamna. In the said proceedings, there was a prayer by the applicant to declare him as a natural guardian. Therefore, in Misc. Civil Application No. 18 of 2012, a formal declaration is sought by the respondent in the said application to declare him as a natural guardian. Therefore, it follows from the said prayer that the application filed by the respondent for the sale of land standing in the name of Ku. Kamna (minor) was premature.

Apart from the above fact, the trial court was duty bound to find the truth whether the application seeking permission for the sale of land, standing in the name of the minor, would be for the benefit of the minor. However, the trial court had not made an in-depth endeavour to do such an exercise and by cryptic reasons had allowed the application filed by the respondent granting him permission to sell the land standing in the name of minor Ku. Kamna. In the application for sale of the land, the averments were general in nature and there were no specifications given by the applicant, in which he expressed his desire to protect the interest of the minor and by which mode and manner, he intends to deposit the amount after sale of land standing in the name of minor. Further, the trial court had not adverted to the provisions of Sections 29 and 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

The Hon’ble Court set aside the order of trial court and remitted the matter back to trial court to decide alongwith the Misc. Civil Application No.18/2012, which was kept pending for hearing.