http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

PETITIONER:

SRI NARAYAN BAL AND OTHERS

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

SRI SRIDHAR SUTAR AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/01/1996

BENCH:

PUNCHHI, M.M.

BENCH:

PUNCHHI, M.M.

PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:

JT 1996 (1) 711 1996 SCALE (1)570

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

PUNCHHI, J.

Leave was granted in this appeal to consider the

question posed: whether the provisions of Section 8 of the

Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter

referred to as the Act) were applicable to the Joint Hindu

Family property sold or disposed of by the Karta.

The facts :

Dhanu Bal and Param Bal were two brothers constituting

a Joint Hindu Family. Dhanu Bal had a wife, Nidhi, an adult

son, Jag Bandhu and a few minor sons. Param Bal had a son,

Raghu bal. Raghu Bal had a wife Satyabhama and a few minor

sons. Dhanu Bal, Param Bal and Raghu Bal died. Jag Bandhu as

Karta of the Joint Hindu Family, joining with him the widows

Nidhi for herself and as guardian of her minor sons and

Satyabhama for herself and as guardian of her minor sons,

executed a sale deed pertaining to certain joint family

lands in favour of the first defendant-respondents on 23-3-

1971, who made a further sale in favour of the second

defendant-respondent. The plaintiffs-appellants who were all

members of the Joint Hindu family filed a suit to have

declared the aforesaid sale as illegal and void on the plea

that the transaction was `vitiated by fraud, mis-

representation and taking undue advantage of the illiteracy

of Nidhi and Satyabhama, widows. The suit was resisted by

the defendants-respondents on the plea that Jagabandhu was

literate even though the widows were not, and had executed

the sale deed as Karta of the family to which the other

widow executants had supportively joined him in the

execution of the sale deed for themselves and as guardians

of the mino members of the Joint Hindu Family. The trial

court on assessment of the evidence, decreed the suit, but

the lower appellate court rejected the case of the

plaintiff-appellants with regard to fraud, undue influence,

mis-representation etc. holding that the sale in question

was executed by the executants validly and for legal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3

necessity. The second appeal by the plaintiffs-appellants

was dismissed in limine, for the High Court was of the view

that no substantial question of law arose, requiring

determination. Hence this appeal.

For the first time in the special leave petition the

competence of the Karta of the Hindu Joint family, effecting

sale of the undivided interests of the minors in the Joint

Hindu Family property has been questioned in this Court on

the anvil of section 8 of the Act. Therefore the question as

framed at the outset has cropped up for consideration.

Section 6 of the Act inter alia provides that the

natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the

minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property

(excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family

property), are - in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl -

the father, and after him, the mother; provided that the

custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five

years shalol ordinarily be with the mother. Section 8

thereof inter alia provides that the natural guardian of a

Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this

section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable

and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the

realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate;

but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal

covenant. Furthermore the natural guardian shall not,

without the previous permission of the court, mortgage or

charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise,

any part of the immovable property of he minor or lease any

part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for

a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which

the minor will attain majority. Any disposal of immovable

property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-

section (1) or sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance

of the minor or any person claiming on behalf of the minor.

Section 12 provides that where a minor has an undivided

interest in the joint family property and the property is

under the management of an adult member of the family, no

guardian shall be appointed for the minor in respect of such

undivided interest : Provided that nothing in this section

shall be deemed to affect the jurisdiction of a High Court

to appoint a guardian in respect of such interest.

With regard o the undivided interest of the Hindu minor

in joint family property, the provisions afore-culled are

beads of the same string and need be viewed in a single

glimpse, simultaneously in conjunction with each other. Each

provisions, and in particular Section 8, cannot be viewed in

isolation. If read together the intent of the legislative in

this beneficial legislation becomes manifest. Ordinarily the

law does not envisage a natural guardian of the undivided

interest of a Hindu minor in joint family property. The

natural guardian of the property of a Hindu minor, other

than the undivided interest in joint family property, is

alone contemplated under Section 8, whereunder his powers

and duties are defined. Section 12 carves out an exception

to the rule that should there be no adult member of the

joint family in management of the joint family property, in

which the minor has an undivided interest, a guardian may be

appointed; but ordinarily no guardian shall be appointed for

such undivided interest of the minor. 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 power of the High Court otherwise to appoint a

guardian, in situations justifying, has been preserved. This

is the legislative scheme on the subject. Under Section 8 a

natural guardian of the property of the Hindu minor, before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3

he disposes of any immovable property of the minor, must

seek permission of the court. But since there need be no

natural guardian for the minor's undivided interest in the

joint family property, as provided under sections 6 to 12 of

the Act, 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. 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. Thus section

8 in view of the express terms of Sections 6 and 12, would

not be applicable where a joint Hindu family property is

sold/disposed of by the Karta involving an undivided

interest of the minor in the said joint Hindu family

property. The question posed at the outset therefore is so

answered.

In the instant case the finding recorded by the courts

below is that Jagabandhu, the eldest male member in the

family acted as a Karta in executing the sale and had joined

with him the two widows for themselves and as guardians of

the minor members of joint Hindu family, as supporting

executants. That act by itself is not indicative of the

minors having a divided interest in the joint Hindu family

property commencing before or at the time of the sale. In

this view of the matter, section 8 of the Act can be of no

avail to the appellant's claim to nullify the sale.

For the reasons above-stated, this appeal fails and is

hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there

shall be no order as to costs.