Supreme Court holds minor property sale permission under Section 8 HMGA must be based on necessity or evident advantage to minor.

Case Name: Shephali Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal

Citation: 2026 INSC 621

Date of Judgment/Order: 03 June 2026

Bench: Sanjay Karol, J. and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for transfer or development of a minor’s immovable property must be assessed from the standpoint of necessity or evident advantage to the minor. The Court held that judicial scrutiny under Section 8 is an ex ante protective mechanism rooted in the doctrine of parens patriae, requiring the Court to independently examine whether the proposed transaction secures measurable, enforceable and beneficial outcomes for the minor. The Court further clarified that while the minor’s welfare is paramount, the presence of a minor co-owner should not unduly prevent adult co-owners from deriving lawful and reasonable benefit from the property, provided adequate safeguards protect the minor’s interest.

Summary: The appellant, mother and natural guardian of minor Basab Chakraborty, sought permission to act upon a development agreement concerning immovable property in which the minor had inherited a share after the death of his father. Under the agreement, the co-owners were to transfer development rights to a developer in exchange for constructed flats and monetary consideration, with the minor and other heirs receiving a share in a first-floor flat and ₹10,00,000/-. The District Judge, Darjeeling rejected the application, holding that the appellant had made only bald assertions about the benefit to the minor and had failed to explain why the development was necessary or advantageous. The High Court affirmed that view. Reversing the courts below, the Supreme Court explained the scope of Section 8 HMGA, the fiduciary role of a natural guardian, and the Court’s protective jurisdiction over minors’ property. The Court observed that an undivided share in undeveloped land may remain illiquid, notional and vulnerable, whereas a constructed residential unit with definite monetary consideration may create tangible and useful assets for the minor’s education, health and future welfare.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted the appellant permission to realise the development agreement, holding that in the facts of the case, the minor’s 1/3rd share in a constructed residential unit of 1198 sq. ft., along with monetary consideration, was more aligned with the minor’s welfare than an undivided share in undeveloped land. The Court imposed safeguards by directing that the amount received under the development contract be kept in a nationalised bank with auto-renewal until the minor attains majority, subject to liberty to seek modification from the concerned Court; that no change be made to the development agreement without Court approval; that co-owners seeking to sell their share before the minor attains majority must inform and seek permission from the Court; and that the District Judge, Darjeeling may impose further reasoned conditions as deemed fit. All pending applications were disposed of.