Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 3 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Shephali Chakraborty (mother of minor Master Basab Chakraborty); Respondent – State of West Bengal.
  • Background: The minor inherited a 1/6th share (0.13 acres, 5,662.8 sq.ft.) of land originally procured by his great‑grandfather in 1957. After successive inheritances, the share devolved to the appellant and the minor. In 2022 the family entered into a development agreement with M/s Shivam Estates and Developers to convert the land into a residential project. Under the agreement the minor’s share would yield a 1/3rd flat on the first floor (total building area 1,198 sq.ft.; minor’s portion 399.33 sq.ft.) and a cash consideration of Rs 10,00,000.
  • Lower Courts: The District Judge, Darjeeling, rejected the appellant’s application for permission to transfer the minor’s property under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1959. The High Court, Jalpaiguri, affirmed the dismissal.
  • Legal Issues: Whether the proposed transfer satisfies the “necessity or evident advantage” test under Section 8(4); adequacy of the appellant’s evidence on how the transaction benefits the minor; applicability of the statutory restraint on alienation of a minor’s immovable property.
  • Statutory Framework: Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act restricts a natural guardian from alienating a minor’s immovable property without court permission; unauthorized alienations are voidable at the minor’s instance (not void ab initio). The court must be satisfied that the transaction is necessary or demonstrably beneficial to the minor.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting the necessary permission to realise the development agreement, subject to the following conditions:

1. The Rs 10 lakhs payable under the agreement shall be kept in a nationalised bank with auto‑renewal until the minor attains majority. The guardian may seek modification of this term from the concerned court based on prevailing circumstances.

2. Any change to the development agreement requires prior approval of the concerned court.

3. If any co‑owner wishes to sell their share before the minor reaches majority, they must inform the court and obtain its permission.

4. The District Judge, Darjeeling may impose additional conditions and pass a reasoned order as deemed fit.

  • All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
  • The judgment reiterates that the court’s primary duty is to safeguard the welfare of the minor, applying the “best interest of the child” standard, and clarifies that unauthorized alienations are voidable, not void.

Topics: Legal Guardianship, Real Estate Development, Minor’s Property Rights