- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB MFA No. 4222 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4222 OF 2025 (GW) BETWEEN: 1. KUMARI AAYUSHI D/O SRI. CHETHAN R AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2/1,5TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL FATHER AND GUARDIAN. 2. SRI. CHETHAN R. S/O LATE. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2/1,5TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. H.R.UMADEVI.,ADVOCATE) AND: NIL …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB MFA No. 4222 of 2025 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.8(2) (C) OF THE HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIAN SHIP ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED IN G AND WC. 03/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-42, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 8(2) OF THE HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The second appellant has filed this appeal on his own behalf and on behalf of his daughter, who is aged thirteen years, calling in question the Judgment dated 09.04.2025 in G & WC No.03/2025 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Civil Court']. The Civil Court, by this impugned Judgment, has rejected the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB MFA No. 4222 of 2025 appellants' application under Section 8[2] of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 [for short, 'the Act'] for permission to sell the second appellant [the minor's share] in the property bearing Municipal No.3, Shanbhog Nanjundaiah Lane, Upparahalli, Lalbagh, Bengaluru, bearing EPID No. 8231255309 [the subject property]. 2. The appellants have filed this application with the Civil Court contending that the second appellant's mother, Smt. Hemavathi, owned subject property; that she acquired the schedule property as a Legatee; that she has died intestate leaving behind the second appellant and his brother as the sole legal heirs; that the second appellant and his brother, Sri Babu Ram R have concluded a registered Partition Deed under which the subject property is allotted to the second appellant's family with he taking one third share and his two children taking the other two thirds equally; that the second appellant's other son - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB MFA No. 4222 of 2025 is aged 21 years and he has completed his graduation recently. The appellants' further case is that the subject property is in a dilapidated condition and that it does not generate income for them, and that the second appellant, who is only working as a driver, does not have the resources to develop or manage the subject property without selling. 3. The appellants pivot their case for permission to sell the first appellant's undivided share on the assertion that it would be necessary in the circumstances to sell the subject property with necessary arrangements to protect the minor's interest. However, the Civil Court has rejected the application opining that the appellants have produced no document except photographs to show that the subject property is in dilapidated condition, that the second appellant, who is the father of the minor [the first appellant], is under a legal duty to provide for the minor's maintenance and bear all - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB MFA No. 4222 of 2025 expenses and that there is no material to show that he suffers from any mental or physical disability. 4. Smt H.R. Umadevi, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the fundamental of the appellants' case is that the subject property is in a dilapidated condition and that the second appellant does not have the financial wherewithal to develop the subject property, but the Civil Court has not considered these circumstances in the light of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act which stipulates that permission shall not be granted except in case of necessity or an evident advantage of the minor. 5. Smt H.R. Umadevi emphasizes that the sale of the subject property and utilization of the minor's share for her education would be far more beneficial and helpful than retaining the subject property with no improvement. When queried, the learned counsel submits that to bring out the bona - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB MFA No. 4222 of 2025 fides in protecting the minor's interest, the second appellant is categorical that not just the minor's share in terms of the partition but a higher share will be apportioned to her and kept in a deposit and any further utilization of the amount in such deposit will only be with the prior permission of the Court. 6. The appellants' grievance as against the reasons assigned by the Civil Court is examined in the light of the undisputed facts and the appellants' specific stand that, out of the sale proceeds, a much larger share than the share that the minor [the first appellant] would be entitled to in terms of the Partition Deed will be in a fixed deposit and will not be applied otherwise without the express permission of the Court once again under Section 8 of the Act. When these circumstances are considered, and the mandate in the law being that the decision must be based on the necessity for an evident advantage to the minor, this Court is persuaded to opine that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB MFA No. 4222 of 2025 Civil Court has failed to consider material circumstances resulting in an irregular order and therefore there must be interference but on terms. Hence: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part setting aside the impugned Judgment in G & WC No.03/2025 dated 09.04.2025 on the file of the XLI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and allowing the appellants' application for permission to sell the subject property, but on the following terms: [i] The second appellant and his major son shall ensure that the subject property is put to sale after wide publicity including causing Public Notice. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB MFA No. 4222 of 2025 [ii] 40% of the sale price shall be directly received in the minor's account and deposited with a nationalized Bank for the period until the minor attains the age of majority. The first appellant shall not be entitled to draw even the interest until such period. [iii] The minor's interest in the subject property shall be strictly subject to these terms. [iv] It is needless to observe that if the second appellant proposes to apply the amount received on the minor's account and deposited in a fixed deposit as aforesaid, for the purposes of purchasing a property in the minor's name, the second appellant shall make appropriate application - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20689-DB MFA No. 4222 of 2025 once again with the Civil Court under Section 8 of the Act. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE AN/-