The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held that a mother, acting as a natural guardian and the adult member managing a joint Hindu family property, is competent to sell a minor child’s undivided interest for their welfare without requiring previous permission from the Court under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, while allowing a First Appeal From Order, set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, which had appointed the mother as a guardian but refused her permission to sell the minor’s share in the property.
Background
The appellant, Smt. Doli, is the widow of Late Amit Kumar and the mother of a minor girl, Kumari Vanshika. Following her husband’s death, she filed an application (G.C. Petition No. 249 of 2024) under Sections 8 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. She sought to be declared the guardian of her daughter and requested permission to sell the minor’s 1/4th share in properties described in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ to fund the child’s higher education.
The respondent, Smt. Shakuntla Devi (the grandmother of the minor), filed a “no objection” stating that the appellant should be declared the natural guardian and granted the sought permission. However, on July 17, 2025, the lower court only partially allowed the application, appointing the appellant as guardian but refusing permission to sell the land.
Arguments
Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the lower court erred in refusing permission. It was argued that under Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, such permission is not restricted when dealing with a minor’s undivided interest in joint family property managed by an adult member. Reliance was placed on the coordinate Bench decision in Smt. Preeti Arora vs. Subhash Chandra Arora (2024) and the Bombay High Court’s decision in Pooja vs. The State of Maharashtra (2025).
The counsel for the respondent supported the appellant’s case and reiterated that there was no objection to the appeal being allowed.
Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Justice Agarwal noted that while the 1890 Act is silent on “natural guardians,” the 1956 Act (which is supplemental to the 1890 Act) specifically defines the father, and after him the mother, as natural guardians of a Hindu minor.
The Court focused on Section 12 of the 1956 Act, which provides that no guardian shall be appointed for a minor’s undivided interest in joint family property if the property is under the management of an adult member.
The Court observed:
“The adult member of the family in the management of the Joint Hindu Family property may be a male or a female, not necessarily the Karta… The joint Hindu family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its Karta and other adult members of the family in management of the joint Hindu family property.”
Regarding the requirement of court permission under Section 8(2) of the 1956 Act, the Court clarified that this restriction applies to the separate property of a minor, not their fluctuating interest in an undivided joint family property. Citing the Supreme Court in Sri Narayan Bal and Others Vs. Shridhar Sutar and Others, the Court noted:
“Since there need be no natural guardian for the minor’s undivided interest in the joint family property… the previous permission of the Court under Section 8 of disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required.”
In the present case, the Court found that the appellant was both the natural guardian and the adult member managing the property. Since the minor’s father had died, the mother was acting as the manager of the joint family property.
Decision
The High Court found that the minor girl, who had appeared in her Class XII examinations, required substantial funds for higher education. It held that the appellant, as the adult member of the joint family, could sell the minor’s share for her welfare.
The Court concluded:
“The case of the appellant would not fall within the parameters of Section 29 of the Act of 1890 or Section 8(2) of the Act of 1956, rather the description of the property mentioned in Schedule of the application moved by appellant clearly reveals that case falls under Section 12 of the Act of 1956 for consideration.”
The judgment and order dated July 17, 2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, were set aside as “unsustainable in the eyes of law.” The appeal was allowed, and the prayer for permission to sell the property was granted.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Doli Versus Smt. Shakuntla Devi
- Case Number: First Appeal From Order No. – 2057 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- Date: March 23, 2026
