Courts should think of child’s future in property disputes: HC
Times of India | 22 March 2025
Kolkata: Courts should not be "pedantic" and must think about a child's future while deciding on property disputes, in cases where the minor's guardian wants to sell off the child's share for the child's welfare, Calcutta High Court recently said.
The observation, by the high court's Jalpaiguri circuit bench, came while the court allowed a widowed woman to sell off her daughter's inherited assets and keep the money aside in a fixed deposit until her daughter became an adult. The woman has no source of income.
There was "no justification" in refusing the woman permission to sell off her daughter's share of property, considering her welfare, the division bench of justices Harish Tandon and Apurba Sinha said on March 13. The court also spelt out that the money from the sale should be kept in a fixed deposit at a nationalised bank.
The woman had approached the court for permission to sell the portion of property in Siliguri's Hakimpara her daughter had inherited, but the court did not allow it previously, saying the woman was free to sell off her own share of property to meet her daughter's needs.
Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, gives a child's guardian the authority to do anything necessary to benefit a minor. But sub-section 2 prevents the sale of a minor's immovable property without court permission. A call regarding this is highly subjective, as sub-section 4 says permission can be denied except in case of "necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor."
The high court, overturning its previous decision, took note of the financial condition of the mother and daughter. The bench noted that the mother did not have any independent source of income, nor was she capable of maintaining her daughter's share of the inherited property.
The court also noted that the child studies in a reputable school, and that considerable money was required to cater to her needs. "The interests of the minor can be protected by putting a condition of keeping the amount separated from the rest of the share held by the appellant (mother) as well as the respondent (mother's sister-in-law). Considering the welfare of the minor, in the attending circumstances as indicated above, there is no justification in refusing permission to sell the share of the minor," the bench held.
"The court should not adopt a pedantic view in this regard, nor should take a view which does not add to the advantage of the minor," the HC said. "Therefore, it is an ardent duty of the court to consider the case on the basis of surrounding facts and circumstances.... The consideration on the welfare of the minor has to be taken in a subjective manner, more particularly on the attending facts and circumstances, including the disadvantages that the minor would face after attaining majority."