Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Sections 6 and 8-The necessity for a natural guardian to obtain permission or sanction from the Court before alienating the minor's property will not be attracted so far as the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property is concerned.
Section 8(3) of the Act lays down 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. When Section 8 does not take within its ambit the minors undivided interest in the joint family property, Section 8(3) would not be applicable.
The recitals of legal necessity in a deed do not by themselves prove legal necessity. The recitals are, however, admissible in evidence, their value varying according to the circumstances in which the transaction was entered into. The recitals may be used to corroborate other evidence of the existence of legal necessity. The weight to be attached to the recitals varies according to the circumstance.
What the alienee is required to establish is legal necessity for the transaction and it is not necessary for him to show that every bit of the consideration which he advanced was actually applied for meeting family necessity. The reason is that the alienee can rarely have the means of controlling and directing the actual application of the money paid or advanced by him unless he enters into the management himself.
The natural guardian of a minor has the necessary competence to deal with even the separate property of the minor. Nonetheless the natural guardian remains a guardian of the minor in other senses also. Natural guardian who has a share in the property along with the minors' undivided interest in the property is legally competent to alienate the property as a whole, either in the capacity of the minor's guardian or as a Manager.
Karnataka High Court
A. Chidananda (Deceased) By L.Rs. ... vs Smt. Lalitha V. Naik And Ors. on 19 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 Kant 128, 2006 (2) KarLJ 67,2006(3)KCCR1403
Bench: H G Ramesh