Source: http://peractolegal.com/the-hindu-minority-and-guardianship-act-1956/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:34:07+00:00

Document:
If a person donates property to a minor and appoints a guardian to look after the property he would not be a guardian within the meaning of the Act; Rajalakshmi v. Ramachandran, AIR 1967 Mad 113: ILR (1967) Mad 338: (1966) 1 MLJ 420.
The controlling consideration governing the custody of the children is the welfare of the children and not the right of the parents; Rosy Jacob v. Jacob Chakramakkal, AIR 1973 SC 2090: (1973) 3 SCR 918: (1973) 1 SCC 840.
Father is the natural guardian of a minor. In the absence of father, mother is the natural guardian. The mother of the minor children was dead, but the father was not residing with the children, who were being looked after by the aunty. It was held that though father was not residing with his children, he is still alive, has not ceased to be a Hindu or renounced the world and has not been declared unfit. This does not authorise any other person to assume the role of natural guardian and alienate the minor’s property; Essakkayal Nadder v. Sreedharan Babu, AIR 1992 Ker 200.
Alienation of minor’s property by natural guardian (Mother) of the minor, without obtaining permission of court for such alienation, is void ab initio; Subhashappa P. Meti v. Maroti L. Sawarkar, AIR 2006 (NOC) 608 (Bom).
(i) It is well settled principle that in matter relating to the custody of the minor child the interest and welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and not the convenience or pleasure of the parents; Kumar v. Jahgirdar v. Chetana K. Ramatheertha, AIR 2001 SC 2179.
(ii) Immovable property contemplated in section 8 means a minor’s definite property and not his fluctuating indefinite interest in the joint family property. Interest is ever fluctuating depending upon exit and entry in the family by natural process or otherwise. It is only upon a partition that a definite share can be culled out. Undivided interest of a minor is left untouched. Section 8 is in pari materia with section 29 of Guardians and Wards Act; Naryan Laxman Gilankar v. Uday Kumar Kashinath Kaushik, AIR 1994 Bom 152.
(iii) A contract for the purchase of immovable property which is likely to increase in price is for the benefit of the minor; Manik Chand v. Ramchandra, AIR 1981 SC 519: (1980) 4 SCC 22.
(iv) Where the guardian acquires property for the benefit of the minor no permission of court is necessary; Than Singh v. Barelal, AIR 1974 MP 24.
(v) An alienation of property without the permission of the court is voidable at the option of the minor; Iruppakutty v. Cherukutty, AIR 1972 Ker 71.
(i) Alienation made by the mother of the minor in contravention of section 8(2) are voidable at the option of minor and such alienation were required to set aside if minor wanted to avoid the transfers and regain the properties from the purchasers. If in plaint the prayer for setting aside the sale deeds was not there and such a prayer has been introduced after period of limitation which is three years from the date when minor attains majority, has elapsed, the claim for recovery of possession of property is not maintainable; Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayana, AIR 2001 SC 2607.
(ii) Sale transaction by a natural guardian even if beneficial for the minor is voidable and not void ab initio, if it is done without the previous permission of the court. Held that the minor can challenge only after attaining majority and not during his minority; Naryan Laxman Gilankar v. Uday Kumar Kashinath Kaushik, AIR 1994 Bom 152.
(iii) When the natural guardian i.e. the father dies leaving behind mother as the natural guardian and minor sons and daughters, section 8, would not apply as the interest of the minor daughter would be fluctuating undivided interest in the joint family property. But where the father dies leaving behind only his minor daughter and mother as natural guardian, the shares of the daughters become definite and the question of family property retaining the character of Joint Hindu Family property does not exist and section 8(3) is attracted and sale transactions done by mother without the previous permission of court becomes voidable at the option of minor. Held that the mother had no authority to alienate the shares of minor daughters; Mangala v. Jayabai, AIR 1994 Kant 276.
(iv) The notional partition between the plaintiff during his minority and his father before his death left him 3/4 share in the property and rest of the property to his mother. Held that as the minor had definite share in the property, the mother had no authority without the previous permision of the court to sell the separate property of minor; Dhansekaran v. Manoranjthammal, AIR 1992 Mad 214.
(i) Where a grandmother appoints the mother as testamentary guardian for the property bequeathed to the minor, during the lifetime of the father, the mother cannot alienate the property of the minor as the grandmother has no power to appoint a testamentary guardian. Such alienation would be void ab initio; Sundaramurthy v. Shanmuganadar, AIR 1980 Mad 207.
(ii) Under this section power is conferred on the father or the mother in certain circumstances to appoint a guardian by will. This power does not extend to a donor of property; Rajalakshmi v. Ramachandran, AIR 1967 Mad 113: 1966 (2) MLJ 420.
(iii) A testamentary guardian cannot sell minor’s property without prior permission of the court; Duraiswamy v. Balasubramanian, AIR 1977 Mad 304.
There is no conflict between this provision and section 21 of the Guardian and Wards Act as the latter relates to guardianship of the person, whereas this provision is concerned with the guardianship in respect of property and, therefore, both provisions can co-exist; Budhi Jainar v. Dhobai Naik, AIR 1958 Ori 7: ILR (1957) Cut 574.
(i) Alienation done by a de facto guardian is void and the alienee is in the position of a trespasser who has no right in the property. Held that the aunty of the plaintiff had no authority to sell the property and the alienation done was invalid and not binding on the minors, i.e., the plaintiffs; Essakkyal Nadar v. Sreedharan Babu, AIR 1992 Ker 200.
(ii) The provisions of section 11 apply to both the categories of property of a minor, i.e., separate property and the undivided interest of a Hindu minor in the joint family property. If a distinction is made between the categories the object of section 11 of preventing the de facto guardian from dealing with the property of a minor would be frustrated. The de facto guardian would be at liberty to deal with the undivided interest of the minor in the Joint Hindu Family property; Dhanasekaran v. Manoranjthammal, AIR 1992 Mad 214.
(iii) Where there is a sale of minor’s property by the maternal grandfather during the minority by the minor’s mother, it is void. After attaining majority, the mother as natural guardian of the minor cannot ratify the sale as the maternal grandfather’s sale as de facto guardian is void; Kanchi Kamamma v. Appanna, AIR 1973 AP 201: (1973) 2 An WR 74.
(i) The management of the Joint Family and its affairs can be taken up not only by an adult male member of the family but also by a female member of the family like the mother; Dhanasekaran v. Manoranjthammal, AIR 1992 Mad 214.
(ii) A guardian can be appointed in cases where the minor is the sole surviving coparcener; Ratnabai v. Sitabai, AIR 1952 Bom 160.
(i) The welfare of the child is determined neither by the economic affluence nor a deep mental or emotional concern for the well being of the child. The answer depends on the balancing of all these factors and determining what is best for the child’s total well being. Held that the father being a Sergeant in the Indian Army who had a record of disciplined life with a regular income, was willing to get posted to Kozhikode for the education of the minor and the parents of the father were affluent enough to look after the minor unlike the parents of the mother (who was dead) were old, had no proper source of income and also had a mentally retarded son to look after, was in a better position to look after the welfare of the minor; Munnodiyil Peravakutty v. Kuniyedath Chalil Velayudhan, AIR 1992 Ker 290.
(ii) Recognition of father’s absolute right to the custody of the child would render the child an inanimate property or chattel, which could be possessed and used as the owner pleases. Held that though the father was not found unfit as a guardian of his minor children keeping them in the custody of maternal grandmother subject to certain conditions; Baby Sarojam v. S. Vijaykrishnan Nair, AIR 1992 Ker 277.
Money alone is not sufficient to record finding regarding the welfare of the child. In case mother of minor is in the habit of attending night clubs and coming late at home during which period the minor has to be left in some care house, there is likelihood of his coming into contact with undesirable elements due to the negligence of mother. Therefore in the interest of child it will be proper that he is not left with his mother; Amit Beri v. Sheetal Beri, wife of Amit Beri, AIR 2003 All 18.
The minor child had been left in the custody of his mother’s sister and maternal grandparents due to the mother’s illness. It was held that as the father is the natural guardian and was employed as a Lecturer a noble profession, the welfare of the minor is with his father and mother and not other relatives; Ankur Tripathi v. Radhey Shyam Pandey, AIR 1994 All 250.
Though the natural guardians are enumerated in section 6 the right is not absolute and the court has to give paramount considertion to the welfare of the minor; Mohini v. Virendra, AIR 1977 SC 1359: 1977(3) SCC 513.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.