Chattisgarh High Court
Rukhmani Ogre vs Public At Large on 27 March, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Page 1 of 8
{FA(MAT)No.92/2026}
Digitally 2026:CGHC:14583-DB
signed by
SISTA
SISTA
SOMAYAJULU AFR
SOMAYAJULU Date:
2026.03.30
17:05:41
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FA(MAT) No. 92 of 2026
{Arising out of order dated 17-9-2024 in Civil Suit No.56A/2024 of the
Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham}
1. Rukhmani Ogre, W/o Late Raj Kumar Ogre, Aged about 36 years.
(Applicant No.1)
2. Bhavesh Ogre (Minor), Aged about 14 years, S/o Late Raj Kumar
Ogre, Represented Through Mother Rukhmani Ogre, W/o Late Raj
Kumar Ogre, Aged about 36 years.
(Applicant No.2)
3. Vishal Ogre (Minor), Aged about 11 years, S/o Late Raj Kumar Ogre,
Represented Through Mother Rukhmani Ogre, W/o Late Raj Kumar
Ogre, Aged about 36 years.
(Applicant No.3)
All are R/o Village Dabrabhath, Tehsil Kawardha, Kabirdham,
District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
... Appellants
versus
1. Public at Large, whosoever has any relation to the application or
appeal of appellants.
(Non-applicant No.1)
2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Collector, Kabirdham, District
Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
(Non-applicant No.2)
... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Amit Buxy, Deputy Government Advocate.
Division Bench: -
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.
Page 2 of 8 {FA(MAT)No.92/2026} Judgment On Board (27/03/2026) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Heard on I.A.No.1/2026, application for condonation of delay in filing the present first appeal.
2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned, as sufficient cause has been shown for delay in filing the instant first appeal.
3. Also heard on admission.
4. The short question involved in the first appeal is, whether the Family Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the application for granting permission to sell the minor's property under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 or the District Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the application?
5. The aforesaid question of law arises on the following factual backdrop: -
6. The appellants herein, who are mother and two minor children namely, Bhavesh Ogre and Vishal Ogre are jointly registered owners of the suit property situate at Village Dabrabhath, Patwari Halka No.8, R.I. Circle Nevari, Tehsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham. Appellant No.1 herein being mother of appellants No.2 & 3 herein made an application that Khasra No.313/3, area 0.2350 hectare, is required to be sold for education of her two minor children and Page 3 of 8 {FA(MAT)No.92/2026} therefore she may be granted permission to alienate the said property and the said application was made before the Family Court, Kabirdham. The learned Family Court by its impugned order summarily rejected the application holding that by virtue of Explanation (g) appended to Section 7(1) read with Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the application for granting permission to alienate the minor's property. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, this appeal has been preferred.
7. Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants herein, would submit that the Family Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application without properly adducing any witness or evidence on record, whereas after the enactment of the Family Courts Act, 1984, only and only the Family Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the application for permission to sell the minor's property under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and alternatively, he would submit that the appellants may be permitted to file application before the District Court as envisaged under sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
8. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondent No.2 herein, would support the impugned order and oppose the appeal.
9. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained in Chapter III of the Page 4 of 8 {FA(MAT)No.92/2026} Family Courts Act, 1984, which deals with Jurisdiction. Explanation
(g) appended to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would be pertinent which states as under: -
"7. Jurisdiction.--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall--
(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the explanation;
and
(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation.--The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:--
(a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx
(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor."
10. A careful perusal of Explanation (g) appended to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would show that a suit or proceeding relating to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor, would lie before the Family Court and jurisdiction of the District Court is taken away. The legislature has consciously omitted to confer jurisdiction to the Family Court to deal with the property of the minor and Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 deals with Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings. Section 8(a) clearly provides as under: -
"8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings.
--Where a Family Court has been established for any area,--Page 5 of 8
{FA(MAT)No.92/2026}
(a) no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section;
(b) to (c) xxx xxx xxx"
11. Thus, clause (a) of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub- section (1) of Section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section. As such, the Family Court would have exclusive jurisdiction in the matters provided therein including the guardianship of the person or the custody of any minor and the jurisdiction to entertain application for alienation of the minor's property is excluded by virtue of Section 8(a) read with Explanation (g) appended to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Therefore, the Family Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any application for granting permission to alienate the minor's property by virtue of Explanation (g) appended to Section 7(1) read with Section 8(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
12.At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which deals with the powers of natural guardian. It states as under: -
"8. Powers of natural guardian.--(1) 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 realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.Page 6 of 8
{FA(MAT)No.92/2026} (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court.--
(a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor; or
(b) 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.
(3) xxx xxx xxx (4) No court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor.
(5) xxx xxx xxx (6) In this section "court" means the city civil court or a district court or a court empowered under Section 4A of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property in respect of which the application is made is situate, and where the immovable property is situate within the jurisdiction of more than one such court, means the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate."
13.A careful perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 would show that the natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court, alienate any part of the immovable property of the minor. Sub- section (4) of Section 8 states that no court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor. Sub-section (6) of Section 8 provides that a district court is empowered under Section 4A of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Page 7 of 8 {FA(MAT)No.92/2026} within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property in respect of which the application is made is situate.
14.As such, by virtue of sub-section (2) read with sub-section (6) of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the District Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the application with regard to sale of minor's property made by the natural guardian.
15.Similarly, sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 provides that if the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property.
16.Concludingly, by virtue of Explanation (g) appended to Section 7(1) read with Section 8(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1894, jurisdiction of the Family Court is impliedly excluded to deal with the property of a minor and similarly, by virtue of sub-section (2) read with sub- section (4) of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, jurisdiction to grant permission to alienate any part of the immovable property of the minor has been conferred with the District Court.
17. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. However, the appellants are at liberty to make application before the District Court, Kabirdham for alienation of the Page 8 of 8 {FA(MAT)No.92/2026} minor's property under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 which shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made herein-above or by any of the observations made in the order impugned passed by the Family Court. No order as to cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
JUDGE JUDGE
Soma