The Allahabad High Court ruled that a mother acting as natural guardian and managing joint Hindu family property may sell a minor’s undivided share for the child’s welfare without needing prior court permission under Section 8(2) of law.
The Allahabad High Court held that a mother, acting as natural guardian and as the adult family member managing joint Hindu family property, may sell a minor child’s undivided interest for the child’s welfare without needing prior court permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
The appellant, Smt. Doli, widow of the late Amit Kumar and mother of the minor, Kumari Vanshika, filed 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 asked to be declared the guardian of her daughter and sought permission to sell the minor’s one-fourth share in the properties listed in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ to finance the child’s higher education.
Also Read: Are Daughters Equal Heirs? | Property Rights of Women in India Explained
The respondent, Smt. Shakuntla Devi (the child’s grandmother), submitted a “no objection,” supporting the appellant’s appointment as natural guardian and the request to sell the share. On July 17, 2025, however, the lower court partly allowed the petition by appointing the mother as guardian but denied permission to sell the minor’s share.
Senior counsel for the appellant argued that the lower court’s refusal was incorrect. It was submitted that under Section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, a guardian’s prior court sanction is not required when the matter involves a minor’s undivided interest in joint family property that is being managed by an adult member.
Counsel relied on the coordinate-bench decision in Smt. Preeti Arora v. Subhash Chandra Arora (2024) and the Bombay High Court’s decision in Pooja v. The State of Maharashtra (2025). The respondent’s counsel supported the appeal and reiterated there was no opposition to granting the relief.
The Court considered how the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, interact. While the 1890 Act does not define “natural guardians,” the 1956 Act supplements it by designating the father, and after him the mother, as a Hindu minor’s natural guardian.
The Court placed emphasis on Section 12 of the 1956 Act, which provides that a guardian need not be appointed for a minor’s undivided interest in joint family property where the property is under management by 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.”
Addressing whether prior court permission under Section 8(2) of the 1956 Act is required, the Court held that this restriction applies to a minor’s separate property, not to the fluctuating undivided interest in joint family property.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s observation in Sri Narayan Bal and Others v. 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.”
Here, the Court found that the appellant was both the natural guardian and the adult family member managing the property after the death of the minor’s father. The minor, who had appeared for her Class XII examinations, required substantial funds for higher education.
Also Read: Do Daughters Have Equal Property Right? : Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The Court concluded that the mother, acting as the adult manager of the joint family property, could sell the minor’s share in the interest of the child’s welfare.
The High Court therefore held that the case did not fall within the ambit of Section 29 of the 1890 Act or Section 8(2) of the 1956 Act, but squarely under Section 12 of the 1956 Act.
The order dated July 17, 2025, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, was set aside as unsustainable, the appeal allowed, and permission granted.
Case Title: Smt. Doli Versus Smt. Shakuntla Devi, First Appeal From Order No.: 2057 of 2025