Alienation of Minor's Property in India: A Legal Analysis of Guardian's Powers and Minor's Rights

Introduction

The law concerning minors is founded upon the principle of protecting their interests, given their inherent vulnerability and incapacity to manage their own affairs. A significant aspect of this protective legal regime pertains to the property owned by minors. In India, the alienation of a minor's property, particularly immovable property, is subject to stringent legal scrutiny. The primary legislative framework governing this area for Hindus is the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter HMGA, 1956). This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles governing the sale of a minor's property, focusing on the powers and restrictions imposed on guardians, the distinction between different types of guardians, the nature of such alienations, and the remedies available to the minor. The analysis will draw extensively upon judicial pronouncements, particularly those provided as reference materials, to elucidate the prevailing legal landscape in India.

The Legal Framework: Powers and Restrictions on Natural Guardians

The HMGA, 1956, codifies the law relating to minority and guardianship among Hindus. It lays down specific provisions concerning the powers of a natural guardian to deal with a minor's property.

The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

Section 4(c) of the HMGA, 1956, defines a "natural guardian" as any of the guardians mentioned in Section 6. Section 6(a) traditionally identified the father, and "after him," the mother, as the natural guardian of a Hindu minor's person and property. The Supreme Court in Githa Hariharan (Ms) And Another v. Reserve Bank Of India And Another (1999 SCC 2 228), interpreted "after him" not merely as "after the lifetime of the father" but also as "in the absence of the father," which could include situations of indifference, incapacity, or mutual agreement, thereby promoting gender equality in guardianship.

The powers of a natural guardian are delineated in Section 8 of the HMGA, 1956. Section 8(1) empowers the natural guardian to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection, or benefit of the minor's estate. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to crucial limitations, especially concerning immovable property.

Section 8(2) of the HMGA, 1956, imposes a significant restriction:

"(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."

The Supreme Court in Saroj v. Sunder Singh And Others (2013 SCC 15 727, and its direct quote provided) reiterated that "no immovable property of the minor can be mortgaged or charged, or transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise without the previous permission of the court." The court can grant such permission only "in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor" (HMGA, 1956, S. 8(4); Saroj v. Sunder Singh, direct quote).

Crucially, Section 8(3) of the HMGA, 1956, states that "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." This principle was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Vishwambhar And Others v. Laxminarayan (Dead) Through Lrs. And Another (2001 SCC 6 163) and Saroj v. Sunder Singh And Others (2013 SCC 15 727).

Legal Necessity and Benefit of the Minor

The concepts of "legal necessity" and "benefit of the minor" are cornerstones for justifying the alienation of a minor's property. While the HMGA, 1956, mandates prior court permission, the court itself grants such permission based on these grounds. Historically, the Privy Council in Hunoomanpersaud Panday v. Mussumat Babooee M. Koonweree ((1856) 6 M.I.A 393), as discussed in Popat Namdeo Sodanvar v. Jagu Pandu Govekar (Bombay High Court, 1968), recognized the power of a manager or guardian to alienate ancestral property for the infant heir's benefit or due to necessity. Legal necessity includes purposes such as the minor's maintenance, education, medical expenses, or meeting essential family obligations binding on the minor's estate. "Benefit of the minor" is a broader term, implying transactions that are clearly advantageous to the minor's estate, such as selling unproductive land to acquire more profitable assets. The court in Ananto Mohini v. Khalli Sahu And Others (Orissa High Court, 1953) considered borrowing money for litigation expenses to protect the minor's property as a prudent act by the guardian, reflective of managing the minor's estate efficiently in adverse circumstances.

Even if a guardian believes a sale is for the minor's benefit (e.g., for education and maintenance), this does not obviate the requirement of prior court permission under Section 8(2) (Saroj v. Sunder Singh And Others, 2013 SCC 15 727). The onus is typically on the alienee to prove that the alienation was for legal necessity or the benefit of the minor, and that due inquiry was made.

Voidable v. Void Transactions

A critical distinction in law is between void and voidable transactions. As established by the Supreme Court in Vishwambhar And Others v. Laxminarayan (2001 SCC 6 163), a sale by a natural guardian in contravention of Section 8(2) of the HMGA, 1956 (i.e., without prior court permission) is not void ab initio but is voidable at the option of the minor or any person claiming under him. This means the transaction remains valid until it is set aside by a competent court at the instance of the minor (or on their behalf during minority, or by them upon attaining majority).

The minor has the right to repudiate or seek to set aside such a voidable sale. This can be done by filing a suit or, as suggested in Chaniram Sahu v. Samaru Nag And Others (Orissa High Court, 1987), even by unilateral conduct such as selling the same property to another person upon attaining majority, thereby ignoring the earlier sale. However, if the minor is out of possession and wishes to recover it, a suit to set aside the sale deed is generally necessary (Chaniram Sahu).

The limitation period for a minor to file a suit to set aside a sale made by their guardian is governed by Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This period is three years from the date the ward attains majority (Vishwambhar And Others v. Laxminarayan; Chaniram Sahu). If the suit is not filed within this period, the right to set aside the sale is barred, though Chaniram Sahu suggests the minor's right to the property itself is not extinguished, only the remedy to recover possession if dispossessed might be barred.

It is important to note that while some High Court judgments, like Maniyamkandi Kunhiraman And Others v. Machil Parambath Vanaja And Others (1997 SCC ONLINE KER 107), have suggested that a transaction violating Section 8(2) could be treated as void, the consistent view of the Supreme Court is that such transactions by natural guardians are voidable.

Alienation of Minor's Interest in Joint Hindu Family Property

A distinct scenario arises when the minor's property is an undivided interest in a Joint Hindu Family (HUF) or coparcenary property. The powers of a Karta (manager) of an HUF to alienate family property, including the undivided interest of minor coparceners, are governed by traditional Hindu law, primarily for legal necessity or the benefit of the estate.

The Supreme Court in Sri Narayan Bal And Others v. Sridhar Sutar And Others (1996 SCC 8 54) clarified that the provisions of Section 8 of the HMGA, 1956, are not applicable to the sale or disposal of a minor's undivided interest in joint family property by the Karta. The Court reasoned that "ordinarily the law does not envisage a natural guardian of the undivided interest of a Hindu minor in joint family property." This position was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in Jagjeet Kaur v. State (Delhi High Court, 2014), stating that Section 8 does not require court permission for selling the minor's share in joint property by the Karta, who can do so if justified under Hindu law.

The Madras High Court in Eachan Neelakantan And Anr. v. Kumarasami Nadar And Anr. (Madras High Court, 1963) also highlighted the distinction between the sale of a minor's separate or exclusively owned property by a guardian (attracting Article 44 of the old Limitation Act, now Article 60) and the sale of ancestral property by a Hindu father (as Karta), even if he purports to act as the minor son's guardian (which would attract Article 126 of the old Limitation Act).

De Facto Guardians and Their Powers (Or Lack Thereof)

Before the HMGA, 1956, the concept of a "de facto guardian" (a person who takes upon themselves the care and management of a minor's property without legal authority) was recognized to some extent. However, Section 11 of the HMGA, 1956, drastically curtailed their powers:

"De facto guardian not to deal with minor's property.—After the commencement of this Act, no person shall be entitled to dispose of, or deal with, the property of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being the de facto guardian of the minor."

Consequently, any alienation of a minor's immovable property by a de facto guardian after the HMGA, 1956, came into force is considered void ab initio. The Kerala High Court in Maniyan Nadar v. Harikumar (Kerala High Court, 2015), citing Supreme Court decisions (Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan and Nagappan v. Ammasai Gounder for natural guardians, and Madhegowda v. Ankegowda for de facto guardians), held that an alienation by a de facto guardian is void ab initio, and the transferee acquires no interest. Such a transaction does not require to be set aside by a suit, and the question of legal necessity is irrelevant. This contrasts sharply with alienations by natural guardians without court permission, which are merely voidable.

The Supreme Court in Rangammal v. Kuppuswami And Another (2011 SCC 12 220) also dealt with a situation involving an alleged de facto guardian's sale and emphasized that if such a sale is without court permission, it is fit to be set aside, and the burden of proof lies on the party asserting rights under such a sale.

Agreements to Sell Minor's Property

The enforceability of agreements to sell a minor's property entered into by a guardian has been a subject of judicial consideration. The Privy Council in Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin Mahomed Chowdhuri ((1911) LR 39 IA 1) held that a contract for the purchase of immovable property entered into by a guardian on behalf of a minor was not specifically enforceable against the minor due to lack of mutuality. This principle was extended by some courts to agreements to sell as well, as seen in Ramakrishna Reddiar v. Kasivasi Chidambara Swamigal (Madras High Court, 1927), which held that an agreement to sell a minor's property, even if for necessity, was not binding on the minor.

However, a more nuanced view has emerged, particularly for Hindu minors. The Bombay High Court in Popat Namdeo Sodanvar v. Jagu Pandu Govekar (Bombay High Court, 1968) argued that if a guardian under Hindu Law is competent to alienate property for necessity or benefit, a contract to sell under such circumstances should be enforceable. The court stated, "In such a case it has been held by the Privy Council that the contract can be specifically enforced by or against the minor, if the contract is one which it is within the competence of the guardian to enter into on his behalf so as to bind him by it, and further, if it is for the benefit of the minor (Subramanyam v. Subba Rao)." The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramchandra v. Manikchand And Another (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 1968) also opined that the guardian of a Hindu minor is competent to enter into a contract of sale of the minor's property if it is for the necessity or benefit of the minor, and such rules of Hindu law were not abrogated by Mir Sarwarjan.

Thus, while the general principle of Mir Sarwarjan regarding mutuality exists, for Hindu minors, contracts for sale entered into by a competent guardian for legal necessity or demonstrable benefit to the minor may be specifically enforceable. However, any such enforcement would invariably require the court to be satisfied about the existence of such necessity or benefit.

Judicial Scrutiny and Procedural Aspects

Courts exercise a parens patriae jurisdiction over minors and their property, ensuring their interests are safeguarded. When a transaction involving a minor's property is challenged, several procedural aspects and evidentiary burdens come into play.

The burden of proof generally lies on the person seeking to uphold the alienation or claiming rights under it. As held in Rangammal v. Kuppuswami And Another (2011 SCC 12 220) and reiterated in Sushila Devi And Others v. Dinesh Prasad Gupta And Others (Jharkhand High Court, 2019), it is for the plaintiff (or the party relying on the sale) to establish their case, including the validity of the sale deed, especially if it involves a minor's property sold by a guardian without clear court sanction.

As discussed, a minor can repudiate a voidable sale upon attaining majority. The Patna High Court in Gunduchi Sahu v. Balaram Balabantra (1939 SCC ONLINE PAT 244) considered a scenario where a guardian's subsequent act of selling property free of encumbrance (for the minor's benefit) could amount to a repudiation on behalf of the minor of an earlier voidable mortgage created by the guardian. This suggests that repudiation might not always require a personal act by the minor post-majority, but could, in certain circumstances, be effected by the guardian acting bona fide for the minor's benefit.

If a sale is executed by a person acting adversely to the minor, rather than as a guardian, the purchaser may not have any equity to claim repayment of the purchase money from the minor, even if the money was used to satisfy debts notionally binding on the minor. In Nathu Piraji Marwadi v. Balwant Rao Bin Yeshwantrao And Anr. (1903 ILR BOM 27 390), where the mother sold property as her own, ignoring the minor, the payment by the purchaser was deemed voluntary and not recoverable from the minor.

A transaction by a guardian that is not for the minor's benefit but for the guardian's own purposes may be viewed more strictly. Gunduchi Sahu pondered whether such a transaction might be void rather than merely voidable, as it would not be an act done on behalf of the minor at all.

Conclusion

The legal framework in India for the alienation of a minor's property is designed with the paramount objective of protecting the minor's welfare and estate. For natural guardians of Hindu minors, Section 8 of the HMGA, 1956, is the cornerstone, mandating prior court permission for any sale of immovable property, granted only upon proof of legal necessity or evident advantage to the minor. Alienations contrary to this provision are voidable at the minor's instance, subject to the prescribed limitation period.

A clear distinction exists for the minor's undivided interest in HUF property, where the Karta's powers of alienation under traditional Hindu law prevail, and Section 8 of the HMGA, 1956, does not apply. Furthermore, the HMGA, 1956, has rendered alienations by de facto guardians void ab initio, offering stronger protection against unauthorized dealings.

The judiciary plays a crucial role in scrutinizing transactions involving minors' property, ensuring strict compliance with statutory safeguards and upholding the "best interests of the child" principle. While the law facilitates necessary alienations for the minor's genuine benefit, it simultaneously erects robust barriers against improvident or unauthorized transactions, thereby balancing the need for effective property management with the imperative of protecting vulnerable minors.