No bar on disposing of minors undivided share

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has held that the restriction of getting prior permission of the court for disposing of any immovable property of a minor by the natural guardian applies only to the separate or absolute property of the minor and it will not include the minor’s undivided share in the joint family property.Justice M Venugopal made the observation while allowing a writ petition from Karuppanna Gounder, last week.The judge said that section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act prevented the natural guardian of a Hindu minor to transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor without prior sanction or permission from the court. The Judge said, this restriction on the natural guardian in respect of the property of the minor applied only to the separate or absolute property of the minor. It did not include the minor’s undivided share in the joint family property as there could not be a natural guardian in respect of such property which was specifically excluded as per section 6 of the Act, the judge said.“In view of the ingredients of section 6 and 12 of the Act, this court comes to an irresistible conclusion that section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is not applicable in respect of a joint Hindu family property, which is sold or disposed of by the ‘Karta’ involving an undivided interest of the minor in the said joint family property,” the judge said and set aside the order of the First Appellate Court in Gobichettipalayam, which reversed the order of the District Munsif, Gobi.Originally, minor Moorthy filed a suit for a declaration that the sale deed executed by his late father Nagappan in favour of Karuppanna Gounder was not binding on him and also sought division of the suit property into two shares, one for his separate possession. The District Munsif rejected his plea. He preferred an appeal and the First Appellate court held that the suit property ancestrally belonged to minor Moorthy and his father Nagappan and as such, it could not be either encumbered or sold and held that the trial court was not correct in saying that minor Moorthy was not entitled to claim partition and separate possession. Against this, Karuppana Gounder preferred the present second appeal.