Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act | Supreme Court Explains Principles On S.8 Application By Guardian For Minor's Property

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 3) held that courts examining natural guardians' applications under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA) seeking the management of the minor's estate must undertake a realistic assessment of whether a proposed transaction offers an “evident advantage” to the minor, rather than rejecting such applications on technical or speculative grounds.

“The Court concerned needs to meticulously examine whether any proposed arrangement could compromise the child's present or future rights, taking into account that the minor cannot fully comprehend or appreciate the consequences of such transactions. The best interest of the child is not passive consideration but a vigorous principle that requires foresight, caution, and meticulous scrutiny in every matter affecting the minor's property- 'for an evident advantage to the minor'.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, while allowing a mother's plea seeking permission to execute a development agreement concerning her minor son's inherited share in an immovable property.

The Court summarised principles on Section 8, culled out from various precedents, as follows :

1. Section 8 imposes a statutory restraint on the powers of a natural guardian in respect of a minor's immovable property and requires prior permission of the concerned Court for alienation as a protective measure.  

2. An alienation of a minor's immovable property made without the permission contemplated under Section 8(2) is not void ab initio but voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming through the minor.

3. The right to avoid unauthorized alienation accrues to the minor upon attaining majority and must be exercised within the period of limitation prescribed by law.

4. Avoidance under Section 8(3) need not necessarily be effected through a formal declaratory suit and may be manifested through clear and unequivocal conduct inconsistent with the continued validity of the transaction, provided such conduct occurs within limitation.

5. Reliefs such as recovery of possession or assertion of exclusive title are contingent upon the prior avoidance of the impugned alienation, and so long as the transaction remains unavoided, it continues to bind the minor's interest.

6. Section 8 governs alienation of a minor's separate or self-acquired property and does not apply to alienation of undivided joint family property effected in accordance with traditional principles of Hindu law.

7. The requirement of prior permission under Section 8 is rooted in the welfare of the minor and must be applied purposively, with reference to whether the transaction is necessary or demonstrably beneficial to the minor.

 8. By rendering unauthorized alienations voidable rather than void, Section 8 balances the protection of a minor's proprietary interests with the need to preserve certainty and stability in property transactions 

Background

The case concerned property originally purchased in 1957 by the minor's paternal great-grandfather. Following a series of family successions, including the death of the minor's father Basudeb Chakraborty in 2018, the minor acquired an undivided share in the land.

In 2022, the co-owners proposed to enter into a development agreement with a developer under which the property would be redeveloped. In return, the minor was entitled to a one-third share in a first-floor flat measuring approximately 399.33 square feet and monetary consideration of ₹10 lakh.

The mother approached the District Court seeking permission under Section 8 of the HMGA. The application was rejected on the ground that she had failed to establish “necessity” or “evident advantage” to the minor. The High Court affirmed this decision.

Challenging these findings, the mother approached the Supreme Court.

Issue

The issue before the Court was about the interpretation of Section 8 of the HMGA, which restricts a natural guardian from selling, transferring, or otherwise alienating a minor's immovable property without prior permission of the court. Under Section 8(4), such permission can be granted only in cases of “necessity” or where the transaction is for the “evident advantage” of the minor.

Decision

Setting aside the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed that since the natural guardian holds the minor's estate in a fiduciary capacity, it is incumbent upon them to satisfy the Court that the proposed transaction is either necessary or demonstrably for the benefit of the minor.

The Court accepted the mother's contention that an undeveloped and undivided interest in land may often offer limited practical utility, while a completed residential unit and liquid funds could provide immediate and tangible benefits to the minor, thereby fulfilling the true purpose of the doctrine of parens patriae under Section 8 of the HMGA.

In view of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, thereby allowing the mother's application to enter into a development agreement with the builder for the benefit of the minor.

Cause Title: SHEPHALI CHAKRABORTY VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 597

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. S.k Pandey, Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. Mr. Amol Shirolkar, Adv. Mr. Rahul Singh Latwal, Adv. M/s Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, Adv.