The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling concerning the sale of a minor’s family property, has held that in cases involving a Hindu minor’s undivided interest in joint family property, prior permission of the Court is not necessary for the natural guardian to sell such property, provided the action is taken for the minor’s benefit and necessity.
The Court clarified that,
“………..it is clear that in case a minor has an interest in joint family property, it is the adult member who is either male or female, would take care of the property and there is no need for appointment of any guardian.”
This order was passed by the Single Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal while allowing the First Appeal From Order filed under Section 47 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 by Smt. Doli.
According to the case, the appellant is the wife of Late Amit Kumar and the mother of the minor girl Vanshika. After the death of Vanshika’s father, she holds approximately a 1/4th share in the joint family property. The appellant approached the trial court at Muzaffarnagar seeking two primary reliefs, i.e., declaration as the natural/legal guardian of the minor and permission to sell the minor’s share in the property.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/section-5-limitation-act-registrar-order-quashed-allahabad-hc/
It was submitted that the proceeds from the sale would be used for the minor’s higher education. The grandmother of the minor also did not object and supported the appellant’s case.
However, the trial court declared the mother as guardian but refused permission to sell the property.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the High Court.
The key question before the Court was whether a mother, being the natural guardian, can sell the minor’s undivided share in joint family property for her welfare (education) without prior permission of the Court.
While addressing the legal issue, the Court held that under Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, no guardian is required to be appointed for a minor’s undivided interest in joint family property if such property is under the management of an adult member of the family.
The Bench accepted the submission of the appellant and found that,
“………In the instant case, it is the mother who is managing the joint family property, thus, 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 Court emphasized that, along with safeguarding the minor’s interest in joint family property, the natural guardian has legal autonomy to take practical decisions for the minor’s welfare.
The Court further noted that,
“……….appellant being the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Act of 1956 can act as a manager being the adult member of joint family property and sell the share of the minor girl for her welfare.”
It was also held that the requirement of prior permission under Section 8(2) does not apply in such cases, as the provision governs separate property of the minor and not the fluctuating undivided interest in joint family property.
The Court finally held that the mother, being the natural guardian and an adult member of the family, is competent to manage and sell the minor’s share in joint family property for her welfare. Accordingly, the order of the trial court was quashed, the appeal was allowed, and permission to sell the property was granted.
Case: Smt. Doli vs Smt.Shakuntla Devi
Case No: First Appeal From Order No. – 2057 of 2025
Date of Order: 23.03.2026
Status: Allowed
