Natural Guardian Can Act As Manager Of Joint Hindu Family Property For Herself & On Behalf Of Minors: Bombay High Court
The Appellant approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the judgment of the Additional District Judge by which her prayer under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act was declined.
The Bombay High Court has recently observed that Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, does not expressly exclude the undivided interest of a minor in a joint family property, and the natural guardian can act as manager of the joint family for herself and on behalf of the minors.
The Appellant approached the Bombay High Court challenging the judgment of the Additional District Judge by which the Appellant’s prayer under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, seeking the grant of permission to sell the land belonging to her and her three minor children had been declined.
The Single Bench of Justice S. G. Chapalgaonkar held, “In light of aforesaid exposition of law, this Court holds that appellant being natural guardian can act as manager of joint family for herself and on behalf of minors and deal with property in interest of minors and joint family subject to legal necessity. Her powers are not fettered by or governed by provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.”
Advocate R.J. Nirmal represented the Appellant, while Advocate V.S. Badakh represented the Respondent-State.
Arguments
The appellant contended that her husband, who was the owner of a suit land, committed suicide. After his death, her name, along with those of three minor children, were mutated in the record of rights over the suit property. The appellant is working in the Private Sector in Pune but is unable to meet the education expenses of the children. It was further submitted that the permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act would not be required for the sale of property by the mother, being the natural guardian of the minor.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the agriculture land is joint Hindu Family property with fluctuating interest of the legal representatives of the appellant’s deceased husband. Referring to the provisions of the Act, the Bench explained, “Scheme of Act as discernible from Section 2, 5, 6, 9 and 12 of Act suggests undivided interest of minor in joint family property is kept outside of purview of Act and natural guardian has been left to deal with it in accordance with the customary Hindu Law. In other words, provisions of Act deals with individual and deEnite immovable property of minor.”
Referring to section 8, the Bench further noted, “Plain reading of aforesaid Section depicts that it does not expressly exclude undivided interest of minor in joint family property.”
As per the Bench, Section 8 cannot be read in isolation, and it has to be read along with Sections 6, 9 & 12. “Harmonious reading of which, in the backdrop of preamble of Act would show restrictions imposed by Section 8 cannot be applied to fluctuating interest of minors in undivided share in joint family property. Therefore, natural guardian, being eldest member of joint family, in-charge of property, can exercise powers to deal with minors in joint family property keeping in mind aspect of legal necessity, interest and benefit of minor. Needless to state that no such alienation would be voidable at instance of minor if it is proved that same was made for legal necessity and for benefit of minor”, it added.
Referring to the rulings in Narayan Laxman Gilankar Vs. Udaykumar Kashinath Kaushik (1993) and Shripati s/o Santu Mane Vs. Goroba s/o Nivarti Ghutukade and another (2008), the Bench held that the appellant, being the natural guardian, can act as manager of the joint family for herself and on behalf of minors and deal with property in the interest of minors and joint family subject to legal necessity.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned judgment.
Cause Title: Pooja W/o Ganesh Popalghat v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:5432)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate R.J. Nirmal
Respondent-State: Advocate V.S. Badakh
