Punjab & Haryana High Court Allows Impleadment in Guardianship Proceedings and Recognises Right to Object to Proposed Sale of Minor’s Property

Case Name: Naresh and Others vs. Neelam and Others
Date of Judgment: 13 November 2025
Citation: CR-7809-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the petitioners to be impleaded as parties in the guardianship proceedings. The Court held that since the respondent had impleaded the general public while seeking permission to sell the minor’s share in the property, any interested or affected party was entitled to appear and raise objections. The Court further held that the trial court failed to consider Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which grants co-sharers a preferential right to acquire the share being proposed for transfer, and therefore refusal to implead the petitioners amounted to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the court.

Summary: The respondent-mother filed a petition under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeking permission to sell the minor daughter’s share in property inherited from her deceased husband. The petitioners sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC, contending that they were co-owners and relatives of the deceased husband and intended to contest the proposed sale, alleging that the respondent had remarried and had already entered into an agreement to sell both her own and the minor’s share. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the petitioners were neither necessary nor proper parties. Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that impleadment was necessary to protect the minor’s interest and that as co-sharers they possessed a statutory preferential purchase right. The High Court noted that when a petitioner voluntarily impleads the general public, the legal effect is that any person with a legitimate stake can step forward and raise objections, and denying such participation defeats the very procedural framework adopted in the petition.

Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The Court directed that the petitioners be impleaded and permitted to raise objections to the proposed sale. The trial court was directed to decide their objections along with the main guardianship petition seeking permission to alienate the minor’s share. The Court held that the refusal to implead had resulted in failure of jurisdiction and correction was necessary to ensure a fair and complete adjudication. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.