The Calcutta High Court has clarified that a transfer of immovable property belonging to a minor, executed by a natural guardian without prior court permission under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, is not void ab initio but voidable at the instance of the minor. This reaffirms the limited scope of mutation authorities, providing binding precedent for mutation proceedings across West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPLRT/167/2025 of Nabarun Ash Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0454662025 |
| Date of Registration | 20-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR (concurring) |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Uday Kumar, JJ) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within West Bengal, especially regarding mutation authorities |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established interpretation of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 |
| Type of Law | Property law / Guardianship / Administrative law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that non-compliance with Section 8(2) of the 1956 Act (lack of prior court permission) does not render a sale void ab initio, but only voidable at the instance of the minor or someone claiming under them, as per Section 8(3). Therefore, unless and until the minor actually seeks to avoid the sale, the mutation authority must proceed if a registered deed exists in the applicant’s name. Mutation authorities cannot adjudicate the validity of the title or the legality of the deed beyond this basic check. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | None specifically cited |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Statutory construction of Section 8(1)-(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Mutation was refused as the property sold to petitioners was originally owned by minors, and prior court permission had not been obtained. No challenge by the minors (now major) was pending against the transaction. Mutation authority withheld mutation solely on the ground of lacking court permission at the time of sale. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and land mutation authorities in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and mutation authorities elsewhere in India |
| Follows | Longstanding statutory interpretation of Section 8(3), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reaffirms that a sale of minor’s immovable property by a natural guardian without prior court permission under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is voidable—not void ab initio.
- Mutation authorities cannot refuse mutation merely because previous court permission was absent at the time of transfer; their mandate is limited to checking the production of a registered transfer deed.
- Only the minor or those claiming through the minor can seek to void such a transaction, not third parties or administrative authorities.
- Any challenge to the deed by the now-major minor must be adjudicated in proper legal proceedings, not in the mutation process.
- The mutation, once allowed, remains subject to the outcome of any future challenge brought by the minor.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analyzed Section 8(1) and Section 8(2) of the 1956 Act, which set out the powers of the natural guardian and the requirement of prior court permission for transferring a minor’s immovable property.
- Although Section 8(2) uses mandatory language (“shall not”), Section 8(3) unambiguously states that any disposal in contravention of these provisions is not void ab initio, but voidable at the instance of the minor or those claiming under them.
- The Court held that the purportedly mandatory tenor of Section 8(2) is immediately qualified and limited by Section 8(3), which is an “umbrella” provision governing the consequences of non-compliance.
- In the absence of any attempt by the (now-major) minor to challenge the transaction, and in the presence of a valid registered deed, the mutation authority was obliged to process the mutation.
- The Court further clarified that mutation authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on title disputes or the legality/validity of the underlying transfer deed beyond checking formal requirements.
- Mutation granted through this process remains subject to any subsequent legal challenge initiated by the minor.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Even if the property was transferred while the owners were minors, there is nothing to show the minors have sought to set aside the transfer after attaining majority.
- The transfer cannot be considered void ab initio merely for want of prior court permission.
- Mutation should be granted upon production of a valid registered transfer deed.
Respondent (State):
- Under Section 8(2) of the Act, a natural guardian cannot transfer a minor’s immovable property without previous court permission.
- Such a transfer, in the absence of permission, is barred and cannot be regularized through mutation.
Factual Background
The petitioners sought mutation of properties purchased by them, but mutation was refused by the authorities on the ground that the original owners were minors at the time of transfer and no prior court permission had been obtained as required under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The refusal was upheld by both the Appellate Authority and the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The minors had not, after attaining majority, made any attempt to set aside the transfer.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court interpreted Section 8(1)-(3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956:
- Section 8(1): States the general powers of a natural guardian.
- Section 8(2): Mandates no transfer of immovable property of a minor by a guardian without prior court permission.
- Section 8(3): Specifically provides that any transfer in violation of the previous sub-sections is only voidable at the instance of the minor or a person claiming under them—not void ab initio.
- The Court gave a harmonious interpretation, holding that Section 8(3) governs the substantive legal effect of non-compliance with Section 8(2).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR: Concurs with the opinion and reasoning of the judgment authored by HON’BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law that transfer of minor’s property without court permission is voidable (not void) affirmed.