Mother Managing Joint Family Property Can Sell Minor's Undivided Share Without Court Permission: Allahabad High Court

"In case a minor has an interest in joint family property, it is the adult member who is either male or female, would take care of the property and there is no need for appointment of any guardian." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated March 23, 2026, held that a natural guardian managing a joint family property can alienate a minor's undivided interest without seeking prior permission from the court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

A bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that the restrictions imposed by Section 8 requiring court permission for property transfers do not apply to a minor's fluctuating interest in an undivided joint family property when it is managed by an adult member.

The appellant, a widow and mother of a minor girl, filed an application before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, seeking to be declared the minor's guardian and requesting permission to sell the minor's one-fourth share in joint family property to fund her daughter's higher education. The minor's grandmother, arrayed as the respondent, filed a no-objection certificate supporting the mother's plea. The lower court appointed the appellant as the guardian but refused to grant permission to sell the property, prompting the present appeal before the High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether prior permission of the court under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, read with the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is required for a natural guardian to sell a minor's undivided interest in a joint family property. The court was also called upon to determine the interplay between Section 8 and Section 12 of the 1956 Act regarding the management of such undivided interests by an adult female member.

The court extensively analyzed the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, alongside the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The bench noted that Section 8(2) of the 1956 Act curtails certain powers of a natural guardian, mandating previous permission of the court to transfer immovable property by sale, gift, or exchange. However, the court ruled that this general restriction must be read harmoniously with the specific exception carved out in Section 12, which addresses a minor's undivided interest in joint family property. "Thus, sub-section (5) of Section 8 clarifies Section 2 of the Act of 1956 which provides the Act to be supplemental to the Act No. 8 of 1890 and harmonious interpretation has to be given between the provisions of the Act of 1890 and the Act of 1956 while dealing with applications moved either under the Act of 1890 or under the Act of 1956."

The bench emphasized that under Section 12 of the 1956 Act, where a minor has an undivided interest in joint family property under the management of an adult member of the family, no guardian shall be appointed for the minor in respect of such interest. The court observed that with the father deceased, the mother legally assumes the role of both the natural guardian and the adult manager of the joint family property, bringing her actions squarely within the ambit of Section 12 rather than Section 8. "Here the father of the minor had already died and the mother who is the adult member is acting as a manager of joint family property. She is also the natural guardian as per Section 6 of the Act of 1956."

Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in the case of Sri Narayan Bal vs. Shridhar Sutar and a recent Bombay High Court decision in Pooja vs. State of Maharashtra, the bench reiterated that the joint Hindu family itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its adult members. Consequently, the restrictive provisions of Section 8 are not attracted when an adult manager disposes of joint family property involving a minor's undivided share. "However, in the instant case, minor being a Hindu and having an interest in undivided joint family property is protected by management of an adult member of the family."

Addressing the doctrinal question of whether a female adult can manage the property for the purposes of Section 12, the High Court cited the Madras High Court division bench judgment in Dhanasekaran vs. Manoranjithammal. The court affirmed that an adult member managing the property can be either male or female, settling that a mother is fully competent to manage and dispose of the joint family property for legal necessity without the formal appointment of a guardian. "Thus, in view of above, it is clear that in case a minor has an interest in joint family property, it is the adult member who is either male or female, would take care of the property and there is no need for appointment of any guardian."

The court also heavily weighed the overarching purpose behind the minor's property sale. Taking note that the mother sought to sell the property to fund the higher education of her minor daughter, who was appearing for her Class XII examinations, the bench stressed that welfare must remain the paramount consideration in applying these beneficial statutes. "Both the Acts being beneficial legislation, benefits extended to a minor has to be given as per provisions of the Act as welfare of a minor is paramount consideration."

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated July 17, 2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, declaring it unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The appeal was allowed, granting the mother the right to act as the manager of the joint family property and alienate the minor's share for her educational welfare without requiring specific court permission under Section 8.

Date of Decision: 23 March 2026