Karnataka High Court
Master Aditya And Anr vs Nil on 19 June, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3244-DB
MFA No. 204273 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE Mrs JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 204273 OF 2023 (G & WC)
BETWEEN:
1. MASTER ADITYA
S/O. DASHRATH RATHOD
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
2. KUMARI DARSHINI
D/O. DASHRATH RATHOD
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS
SINCE THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2
ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR
Digitally signed
by NATURAL MOTHER
KHAJAAMEEN
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH MRS. ARUNA
COURT OF W/O. DASHRATH RATHOD
KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
BOTH RESIDING AT NEAR GULBARGA
UNIVERSITY, KALNOOR,
KALABURAGI-585105.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PRAKRITI BORALKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ABDUL MUQHTADIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NIL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3244-DB
MFA No. 204273 of 2023
HC-KAR
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 47 (a) AND (b) OF THE
GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
16-09-2023 PASSED IN G & WC NO.04/2023 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT KALABURAGI. B)
TO APPOINT MRS.ARUNA W/O DASHARATH RATHOD THE
NATURAL MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER AS THEIR NATURAL
GUARDIAN AND PERMIT HER TO ALIENATE UNDIVIDED SHARE
OF THE PETITIONERS IN SUIT PROPERTY AND TO EXECUTE
THE NECESSARY CONVEYANCE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE
PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER/S FOR THE BENEFIT AND WELFARE
OF THE PETITIONERS, ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE Mrs JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA)
The present appeal is preferred by the petitioners
through their natural mother in G &WC No.4/2023 against
the order dated 16.09.2023 on the file of the Principal
Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Kalaburagi ['Trial Court' for
short], whereby the petition filed under Section 8(5) of the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with
Sections 29 and 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3244-DB
HC-KAR
by the mother as a natural guardian of the minor
petitioners came to be dismissed.
2. The parties herein are referred to as per their
rank before the Trial Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and perused the material on record.
4. The mother and natural guardian of the minor
petitioners filed petition under Section 8(5) of the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Sections 29
and 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking
permission to sell the schedule property standing in the
name of the minor-Aditya for the benefit of the minors. It
stated that in a family partition effected through a
registered partition deed dated 19.03.2016, the property
bearing Sy.No.665 Khata No.132 measuring 5 acres 3
guntas(hereinafter referred to as "petition property") fell
to the share of the minor petitioner No.1 and the mother
of the petitioners is a co-owner and joint possessor of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3244-DB
HC-KAR
petition property having undivided equal share. It is
averred in the petition that the mother, who is the natural
guardian of the minor children, is required to take care of
their welfare and meet their educational expenses.
5. Paper publication was issued and none of them
appeared neither filed objections.
6. The Trial Court dismissed the petition,
observing that:
i. The petitioner has failed to produce any
documents to show the market value of the
petition property.
ii. No details of the prospective purchaser or
expected sale consideration were provided.
iii. The petition lacked a clear description of the
boundaries and dimension of the petition
property.
iv. The petitioner did not furnish the estimated
expenses for the minor's education, nor did she
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3244-DB
HC-KAR
explain how the proceeds from proposed sale
would be utilized exclusively for the minor's
benefit.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petition property was fallen to the share of the minor
petitioner No.1 in a family partition under a deed dated
19.03.2016. The mother of petitioner No.1 is also a co-
owner and joint possessor of the petition property and in
order to meet the expenses, more particularly, the
educational expenses of the children, intends to sell the
property of the minors. It is submitted that the
observation of the Trial Court that the petitioners have not
produced any materials to substantiate their contention
about their expenses that would be incurred to sell the
property is not justified, as specifically the petitioners have
stated that petitioner No.1 intends to pursue higher
studies and the expenses are huge and the selling of the
property fallen to the share of petitioner No.1 would be
only option that was available to the natural guardian i.e.,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3244-DB
HC-KAR
the mother. She contends that the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court warrants interference by this
Court.
8. In support of her contention, learned counsel
has produced the college fee receipt of the appellants/
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to state that the expenses incurred
in the education of the children is huge and the property
needs to be sold for the necessity.
9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants, the point that arises for our consideration
is:
Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing
the petition filed by the natural guardian and
whether the same warrants any interference by this
Court?
10. Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 reads as under:
"8. Powers of natural guardian.-- (1) The natural
guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3244-DB
HC-KAR
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.
(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) 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 under him.
(4) No court shall grant permission to the natural
guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-
section (2) except in the case of necessity or for an
evident advantage to the minor.
(5) The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890),
shall apply to and in respect of an application for
obtaining permission of the court under sub-section
(2) in all respects as if it were an application for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3244-DB
HC-KAR
obtaining the permission of the court under section
29 of that Act, and in particular--
(a) proceedings in connection with the
application shall be deemed to be proceedings
under that Act within the meaning of section
4A thereof;
(b) the court shall observe the procedure and
have the powers specified in sub-sections (2),
(3) and (4) of section 31 of that Act; and
(c) an appeal shall lie from an order of the
court refusing permission to the natural
guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in
sub-section (2) of this section to the court to
which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions
of that court.
(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."
(emphasis supplied)
11. Sub-clause (4) of Section 8 envisages that no
Court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3244-DB
HC-KAR
any of the acts mentioned in sub-clause(2) except in case
of necessity or for any evident advantage to the minor.
12. Bearing in mind the provisions, upon perusal of
the material on record, this Court finds that the petition
property fell to the share of the minor-petitioner No.1
under the family partition. While it is urged that petitioner
No.1 intends to undergo NEET coaching, the documents on
record show that the minor has enrolled in commerce
stream. The Trial Court rightly observed that the petition
lacked supporting evidence of market value, buyer details
and cost of education expenses. Although, college fee
receipts are submitted, they do not correlate with the
specific claim of NEET coaching to justify the sale of the
petition property of the minor. In light of this, the
proposed sale of petition property cannot be said in the
interest of minor at this stage.
13. At this stage, liberty is sought by the appellant,
who is the natural guardian of the minor, to pursue her
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3244-DB
HC-KAR
remedy before the Trial Court by filing an appropriate
application. The contention of the appellant that the sale
of the petition property is intended to meet the
educational and welfare expenses of appellant
No.1/petitioner No.1 carries sufficient merit, provided the
same is supported by proper and consistent
documentation. Therefore, we reserve the liberty to the
natural guardian-mother to file fresh application before the
Trial Court furnishing detail of the property including its
boundaries and description, intended purpose of sale,
including educational or welfare related needs of the
minor, market value of the petition property and details of
any prospective purchaser and proposed sale
consideration and if such an application is filed, the Trial
Court to consider the same on merits in accordance with
law, not being influenced by the dismissal of the present
appeal. Accordingly, we find no ground to interfere with
the order passed by the Trial Court and point for
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3244-DB
HC-KAR
consideration is answered accordingly and we pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed.
ii. It is needless to observe that the natural
guardian mother of the appellants/petitioners is
at liberty to file necessary application before the
Trial Court with proper description and
boundaries of the property that she intends to
sell and in the interest of the minor, in
accordance with law, if so advised.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
SWK
CT:JLR
