J.M. Malik, J.@mdashRajender Kumar Jain, appellant and his wife Smt. Madhu Jain, jointly purchased property bearing No. AM-161, Shalimar
Bagh, Delhi vide registered sale deed dated 14.03.2003. Smt. Madhu Jain expired on 17.06.2004 leaving behind her husband appellant No. 1,
her two sons, appellants No. 2 and 3 and one minor daughter Vidhi Jain as her legal heirs. Consequently, 1/8th share of the said property fell into
share of her minor daughter Vidhi Jain. Appellants No. 2 and 3 have already relinquished their rights, titles and interest in the said property in favor
of their father, appellant No. 1. Consequently, appellant became the owner of 7/8th share of the said property and Vidhi Jain became 1/8th share
of the said property.
2. The appellants filed an application under Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 12 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Section 29
and 31 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 praying that appellant No. 1 be appointed as guardian of Ms. Vidhi Jain and appellant No. 1 be
permitted to sell the above said 1/8th undivided share of Ms. Vidhi Jain. It is averred that the father of the minor is in dire need of money. He is
getting lucrative offers of about Rs. 12,00,000/- from the prospective buyers. Appellant No. 1 is keeping the interest of the minor in mind because
after the sale of the property, the share of the minor would be invested for the benefit of minor and would not be appropriated by anyone else. The
learned District Judge dismissed his application on 20.10.2006. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed.
3. The appellant No. 1 has also submitted an affidavit in support of his case, wherein he stated that :
I have no adverse interest against my daughter and I having sufficient means to maintain myself and my daughter very well besides other properties,
undertake to look after the education & welfare of my daughter Ms. Vidhi Jain.
In paragraphs No. 5 and 6 of the affidavit, it was further submitted that :
That since my son Mr. Nitin Jain has filed a suit [CS(OS) No. 358/2006] for partition in this Hon''ble Court, a dispute is created over the property
and as such the price of the property may go down due to the pending litigation, it is in the larger interest & welfare qua the 1/8th share of my
minor daughter, if, the said property is sold now for the said offer of Rs. 12.00 lacs.
That out of the sale proceeds, I undertake that the 1/8th share of the minor shall be invested in the name of the minor Ms. Vidhi Jain in Government
Securities fetching better interest for her, in case I am allowed/granted permission to sell the same by this Hon''ble Court.
Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the above said arguments.
4. However, I am unable to clap any significance with these arguments. This is indeed a side show and not the heart of the problem. A bare look
on the pleadings clearly goes to show that the appellant No. 1 has laid more emphasis on his own dire needs rather than ""the necessity or for an
evident advantage to the minor"". The Court has no concern with the dire needs of the appellant No. 1 as such. The paramount question which falls
for consideration is what is the necessity of the minor or whether the sale is to be made for the benefit of her estate. Section 8(4) of The Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 makes it clear :
No Court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) except in the case of necessity or for an
evident advantage to the minor.
There cannot be any guarantee that the minor would not get better offers subsequently which her father is getting now a days. Again, there cannot
be any guarantee that minor will earn more money in Government Securities fetching better interest for her. The Court is bound to take a down to
earth view. This is well known fact that people now a days are getting more money by investing in their properties than they are getting interest in
Government Securities. The minor is 16-17 years old and studying in 12th class. The appellant Rajender Kumar Jain can wait for 1-2 years. The
minor after attaining majority can give her independent opinion about the case property.
5. In Panni Lal Vs. Rajinder Singh and Another, , it was held : -
The provisions of Section 8 are devised to fully protect the property of a minor, even from the depredations of his parents. Section 8 empowers
only the legal guardian to alienate a minor''s immovable property provided it is for the necessity or benefit of the minor or his estate and it further
requires that such alienation shall be effected after the permission of the court has been obtained.
The appeal has no force and the same is, Therefore, dismissed in liming.
