Karnataka High Court
Kumari Aayushi vs Nil on 17 June, 2025
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB
MFA No. 4222 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4222 OF 2025 (GW)
BETWEEN:
1. KUMARI AAYUSHI
D/O SRI. CHETHAN R
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2/1,5TH CROSS,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041,
REPRESENTED BY
NATURAL FATHER AND GUARDIAN.
2. SRI. CHETHAN R.
S/O LATE. RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
Digitally RESIDING AT NO.2/1,5TH CROSS,
signed by JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041.
VANAMALA
N
Location: ...APPELLANTS
High Court
of (BY SRI. H.R.UMADEVI.,ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
AND:
NIL
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB
MFA No. 4222 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.8(2) (C) OF THE HINDU
MINORITY AND GUARDIAN SHIP ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED
IN G AND WC. 03/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CCH-42, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 8(2) OF THE HINDU MINORITY
AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)
The second appellant has filed this appeal on
his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter, who is
aged thirteen years, calling in question the Judgment
dated 09.04.2025 in G & WC No.03/2025 on the file
of the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru [for short, 'the Civil Court']. The Civil
Court, by this impugned Judgment, has rejected the
NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB
HC-KAR
appellants' application under Section 8[2] of the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 [for
short, 'the Act'] for permission to sell the second
appellant [the minor's share] in the property bearing
Municipal No.3, Shanbhog Nanjundaiah Lane,
Upparahalli, Lalbagh, Bengaluru, bearing EPID No.
8231255309 [the subject property].
2. The appellants have filed this application
with the Civil Court contending that the second
appellant's mother, Smt. Hemavathi, owned subject
property; that she acquired the schedule property as
a Legatee; that she has died intestate leaving behind
the second appellant and his brother as the sole legal
heirs; that the second appellant and his brother, Sri
Babu Ram R have concluded a registered Partition
Deed under which the subject property is allotted to
the second appellant's family with he taking one third
share and his two children taking the other two
thirds equally; that the second appellant's other son
NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB
HC-KAR
is aged 21 years and he has completed his graduation
recently. The appellants' further case is that the
subject property is in a dilapidated condition and
that it does not generate income for them, and that
the second appellant, who is only working as a driver,
does not have the resources to develop or manage the
subject property without selling.
3. The appellants pivot their case for
permission to sell the first appellant's undivided
share on the assertion that it would be necessary in
the circumstances to sell the subject property with
necessary arrangements to protect the minor's
interest. However, the Civil Court has rejected the
application opining that the appellants have
produced no document except photographs to show
that the subject property is in dilapidated condition,
that the second appellant, who is the father of the
minor [the first appellant], is under a legal duty to
provide for the minor's maintenance and bear all
NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB
HC-KAR
expenses and that there is no material to show that
he suffers from any mental or physical disability.
4. Smt H.R. Umadevi, the learned counsel for
the appellants, submits that the fundamental of the
appellants' case is that the subject property is in a
dilapidated condition and that the second appellant
does not have the financial wherewithal to develop
the subject property, but the Civil Court has not
considered these circumstances in the light of the
provisions of Section 8 of the Act which stipulates
that permission shall not be granted except in case of
necessity or an evident advantage of the minor.
5. Smt H.R. Umadevi emphasizes that the
sale of the subject property and utilization of the
minor's share for her education would be far more
beneficial and helpful than retaining the subject
property with no improvement. When queried, the
learned counsel submits that to bring out the bona
NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB
HC-KAR
fides in protecting the minor's interest, the second
appellant is categorical that not just the minor's
share in terms of the partition but a higher share will
be apportioned to her and kept in a deposit and any
further utilization of the amount in such deposit will
only be with the prior permission of the Court.
6. The appellants' grievance as against the
reasons assigned by the Civil Court is examined in
the light of the undisputed facts and the appellants'
specific stand that, out of the sale proceeds, a much
larger share than the share that the minor [the first
appellant] would be entitled to in terms of the
Partition Deed will be in a fixed deposit and will not
be applied otherwise without the express permission
of the Court once again under Section 8 of the Act.
When these circumstances are considered, and the
mandate in the law being that the decision must be
based on the necessity for an evident advantage to
the minor, this Court is persuaded to opine that the
NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB
HC-KAR
Civil Court has failed to consider material
circumstances resulting in an irregular order and
therefore there must be interference but on terms.
Hence:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part setting
aside the impugned Judgment in G & WC
No.03/2025 dated 09.04.2025 on the file of
the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru and allowing the
appellants' application for permission to sell
the subject property, but on the following
terms:
[i] The second appellant and his major
son shall ensure that the subject
property is put to sale after wide
publicity including causing Public
Notice.
NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB
HC-KAR
[ii] 40% of the sale price shall be directly
received in the minor's account and
deposited with a nationalized Bank for
the period until the minor attains the
age of majority. The first appellant
shall not be entitled to draw even the
interest until such period.
[iii] The minor's interest in the subject
property shall be strictly subject to
these terms.
[iv] It is needless to observe that if the
second appellant proposes to apply
the amount received on the minor's
account and deposited in a fixed
deposit as aforesaid, for the purposes
of purchasing a property in the
minor's name, the second appellant
shall make appropriate application
NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB
HC-KAR
once again with the Civil Court under
Section 8 of the Act.
SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
SD/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
AN/-
