In family law and property jurisprudence, one of the most sensitive responsibilities of the court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction over a minor’s property. When dealing with applications under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HMGA) to alienate a minor’s estate, courts face a complex balancing act. The judiciary must safeguard the minor’s future without unnecessarily obstructing economically beneficial family transactions.
Recently, the Supreme Court in Shephali Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal (2026 INSC 621) laid down crucial guidelines on how courts should pragmatically assess these applications. The Apex Court clarified that courts must undertake a realistic assessment of “evident advantage” rather than rejecting applications on purely technical or speculative grounds.
Let’s look at a recent practical example (anonymized) to understand how these principles should be correctly applied, followed by a checklist and template to assist District Judges and Family Courts in drafting robust Section 8 orders.
The Case Study: When “Compensation” Misses the Mark
In a recent matter before a District Court, a mother filed an application to execute a relinquishment deed on behalf of her 13-year-old daughter.
The Facts:
-
The minor inherited an undivided share in two joint family properties after her father and grandfather passed away.
-
The total valuation of the properties was over ₹2 Crores.
-
A relative proposed to pay ₹4 Lakhs for the minor’s share, to be kept in a fixed deposit for her education and maintenance.
-
The applicant failed to attach the draft relinquishment deed.
The Court’s Ruling:
The District Court correctly rejected the application. The primary reason being that ₹4 Lakhs is a grossly disproportionate and meagre amount for a share in properties worth crores.
While the court arrived at the legally sound conclusion, the drafting of such judgments can be further strengthened by aligning explicitly with the statutory thresholds of Section 8(4) HMGA and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Under Section 8(4) of the HMGA, a court can only grant permission for a transaction if it is backed by “necessity” or offers an “evident advantage” to the minor.
In Shephali Chakraborty, the Supreme Court noted that an undeveloped, undivided interest in land might offer limited practical utility to a minor. In such cases, converting that share into a completed residential unit or secured liquid funds can constitute an evident advantage. However, the burden remains firmly on the guardian—who holds the property in a fiduciary capacity—to mathematically and practically satisfy the court that the minor is gaining equal or greater value.
In our case study, surrendering a highly valuable undivided share for a fraction of its market value in a fixed deposit fails the “evident advantage” test entirely.
📋 The Essential Checklist for Section 8 HMGA Applications
To ensure judicial orders are robust, legally compliant, and resistant to appellate interference, courts should utilize the following checklist before granting or rejecting permission:
-
Calculate the Exact Fractional Share: Has the minor’s exact legal share in the property been mathematically calculated under the Hindu Succession Act?
-
Independent Valuation: Is there a recent, independent valuation report or ready reckoner rate verifying the total property value?
-
Compare Values (The “Evident Advantage” Test): Does the compensation offered to the minor (in cash, alternative property, or constructed area) equal or exceed the market value of their exact fractional share?
-
Scrutinize the Draft Deed: Has the applicant attached the draft sale/relinquishment/development agreement? (Applications should not be approved without reviewing the exact covenants restricting the minor’s rights).
-
Secure the Consideration: If approving, has the court mandated that the funds be deposited directly into a nationalized bank fixed deposit with auto-renewal until the minor attains majority?
-
Verify the Nature of the Property: Is the property actually the minor’s independent/inherited share, or is it an undivided interest in HUF property being alienated by the Karta? (Note: Under Sections 6 and 12 HMGA, Section 8 permission is generally not required when a Karta alienates joint Hindu family property for legal necessity).
📝 Judgment Template: Drafting the Operative Reasoning
When drafting the operative reasoning in a Section 8 application, trial courts can adapt the following framework:
REASONS:
The applicant seeks permission under Section 8 of the HMGA to alienate the minor’s property. As per Section 8(4) of the Act, and as clarified by the Supreme Court in Shephali Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal (2026 INSC 621), this Court exercises parens patriae jurisdiction to ensure the transaction offers an “evident advantage” or addresses a strict “necessity” for the minor.
Upon perusal of the property valuation (Exh. X) and the minor’s legal entitlement under the Hindu Succession Act, the minor holds a [Insert Fraction] share in the schedule property, mathematically valued at approximately Rs. [Insert Value].
[If Rejecting]: The proposed consideration of Rs. [Insert Proposed Amount] falls grossly short of the minor’s rightful market entitlement. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to place the draft deed on record, preventing this Court from assessing the exact rights being surrendered. Consequently, the transaction fails to meet the threshold of “evident advantage.” The application is therefore rejected.
[If Approving]: The proposed consideration/development share of [Insert Consideration] is commensurate with, and practically advantageous to, the minor’s current undivided interest. The transaction successfully converts an illiquid asset into secured financial utility for the minor’s future education and maintenance. The application is allowed, subject to the strict condition that the monetary consideration be deposited in an auto-renewing fixed deposit in a nationalized bank until the minor attains majority, without permission for premature withdrawal.
