The Supreme Court has held that courts must adopt a practical and welfare-oriented approach while deciding applications seeking permission to transfer a minor’s immovable property.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh allowed a West Bengal woman to proceed with a redevelopment agreement involving property partly owned by her minor son, overturning orders of the District Judge and the Calcutta High Court. The welfare and evident advantage of the minor must remain the paramount consideration while exercising powers under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA).
The case arose from a family-owned property in Darjeeling that had devolved through successive generations. Following the death of Basudeb Chakraborty in 2018, his share in the property passed to his widow, Shephali Chakraborty, and their minor son, Basab Chakraborty. In 2022, the co-owners decided to enter into a development agreement with a real estate developer for redevelopment of the land.
Under the agreement, the owners were to receive residential flats in the proposed building along with monetary consideration. Since a portion of the property belonged to the minor, the mother approached the District Judge under Section 8 of the HMGA seeking permission to transfer the minor’s interest in the property.
However, the District Judge rejected the application, holding that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate how the transaction would specifically benefit the minor. The court observed that there was insufficient information regarding the present use of the property and the actual advantages the minor would derive from the proposed redevelopment. The Calcutta High Court subsequently affirmed that decision.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which regulates the powers of natural guardians over a minor’s property.
The Court observed that while a natural guardian enjoys broad authority to manage a minor’s property, any sale, transfer, mortgage, exchange, or similar dealing involving immovable property requires prior permission from the court. Such judicial oversight exists to ensure that transactions affecting a minor’s property are undertaken only when necessary or clearly advantageous to the child.
The Bench explained that Section 8 embodies a fiduciary principle under which a guardian holds the minor’s property in trust and cannot treat it as his or her own. The statute seeks to balance practical management of the property with judicial safeguards protecting the minor’s future interests.
A substantial part of the judgment examines the doctrine of parens patriae, under which courts and the State act as protectors of persons unable to safeguard their own interests, particularly children.
The Court traced the doctrine through constitutional principles, common law traditions, the Guardians and Wards Act, the Juvenile Justice Act, and other welfare statutes. It observed that judicial intervention in matters involving minors is not merely procedural but reflects a broader duty to ensure the welfare of vulnerable individuals.
According to the Bench, courts considering applications under Section 8 must independently assess whether the proposed transaction genuinely serves the child’s interests rather than mechanically accepting a guardian’s consent or rejecting the request on technical grounds.
Applying these principles to the present case, the Supreme Court compared the minor’s existing interest in the property with the benefits available under the redevelopment agreement.
The Court noted that the minor held only an undivided share in jointly owned undeveloped land. Such an interest often remains difficult to utilize, monetize, or enjoy in practical terms. By contrast, the development agreement offered a specific share in a constructed residential flat together with monetary consideration of ₹10 lakh.
The Bench observed that a completed residential unit provides tangible and immediately usable value. It can be occupied, rented, or preserved for future use, while the monetary component can support the child’s education, healthcare, and overall welfare. In the facts of the case, the Court found that replacing an uncertain and passive land interest with a residential asset and cash consideration was more aligned with the minor’s welfare.
Importantly, the Court clarified that this conclusion was based on the specific facts of the case and should not be treated as a universal rule applicable to all redevelopment transactions involving minors.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the findings of the District Judge and the High Court, holding that they had failed to adequately appreciate the practical benefits accruing to the minor under the redevelopment arrangement.
The Court also rejected the lower court’s concern that the identity of the co-owners of the proposed flat was uncertain, noting that the development agreement itself clearly recorded the ownership structure and succession history of the property.
Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and granted permission for execution of the development agreement.
While permitting the transaction, the Court imposed several safeguards to protect the minor’s interests.
The ₹10 lakh consideration receivable under the development agreement must be deposited in a nationalized bank and kept under auto-renewal until the minor attains majority. The guardian may seek modification of this arrangement from the competent court if circumstances warrant.
The Court further directed that any modification to the development agreement would require prior approval of the concerned court. Additionally, if the co-owners wish to sell their share in the flat before the minor becomes a major, they must first obtain permission from the court. The District Judge was also granted liberty to impose any additional conditions considered necessary to safeguard the minor’s interests.
Case Details
Case Title: Shephali Chakraborty Versus The State Of West Bengal
Citation: JURISHOUR-1543-SC-2026
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25053 OF 2025
Date: 03/06/2026
