JUDGMENT O.P. Garg, J.
1. This is plaintiffs Second Appeal arising out of Suit No. 290 of 1997 which was instituted for the reliefs (1) cancellation of the sale deed dated 8.2.1996 executed by Smt. Shanti Devi-defendant No. 3. Radhey Shyam and Santosh Kumar, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of Kameshwar Nath-defendant No. 4 ; (2) for cancellation of the gift deed dated 24.8.1967 executed by Kameshwar Nath defendant No. 4 in favour of his son Rajesh Kumar-defendant No. 5 and, (3) for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed grove existing in plot Nos. 906M, area 0.533 acres and 906-M area .35 acres, total .68 acres, situate in village Bailjery of Tahsil Kashipur, in district Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar).
2. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial court on 16.8.1975. The defendant Nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal (No. 72 of 1975) which was allowed reversing the decree passed by the trial court and the suit was dismissed.
3. This Second Appeal was admitted and the following subatantial question of law was framed for determination by this Court :
"Whether the sale effected by document dated 8.2.1966 and whether gift made by the document dated 24.8.1967, effected a valid transfer of the property despite the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act?"
The above legal question may be well understood and appreciated for determination in the backdrop of the following facts.
4. Admittedly, one Basant Ram was the grove holder of the grove in dispute. He died sometime in the year, 1963 leaving behind him the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as his legal heirs who it is alleged became grove holders and have been in possession thereafter as Bhumidhars. Defendant No. 3 Smt. Shanti Devi is the widow of late Basant Ram. Since the plaintiffs were minors at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 8.2.1966 in favour of the defendant No. 4, the defendant No. 3 as mother and natural guardian of the plaintiffs joined defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who were major in executing' the sale deed dated 8.2.1966 for a consideration of Rs. 4.000 in favour of Kameshwar Nath. The deed was registered on 22.2.1966. The case of the plaintiff-appellants is that their mother Smt. Shanti Devi had not obtained any permission from the competent court to execute the sale deed on their behalf and, therefore, the sale deed in question is inoperative insofar as the share of the minors in the disputed grove is concerned. According to the plaintiffs, the sale deed was illegal, void and not binding upon them. It was also alleged that the defendant No. 4 has never been in possession of the disputed grove and, therefore, he could not have executed the gift deed in favour of his son-defendant No. 5 on 24.8.1967. The plaintiffs alleged that the gift deed is also not binding upon them. The complaint of the plaintiff-appellants was that on the strength of the sale deed and gift deed, the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are out to disturb their possession.
5. Obviously, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 who had executed the sale deed dated 8.2.1966 did not contest the suit. The suit was contested by the purchaser-defendant No. 4 and subsequently by his son defendant No. 5 in whose favour gift deed was executed. The pleas taken by them arc almost identical. They have asserted that the plaintiffs as well as the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were the members of the Joint Hindu Family and, therefore, the natural guardian of the minor plaintiffs could execute the sale deed for legal necessity as is permissible under the Hindu Law. It was also alleged that the defendant No. 3 Smt. Shanti Devi had obtained permission from the District Judge, Nainital for selling the share of the plaintiffs, and therefore, the sale deed cannot be challenged on any ground. They have further asserted that with the execution of the sale deed possession over the grove in dispute was delivered to the defendant No. 4. The plea that the suit is barred by the principles of estoppel and acquiescence was also taken.
6. The trial court framed the necessary issues and recorded the finding that Smt. Shanti Devi-defendant No. 3 even though is the mother and natural guardian of the plaintiffs, had no competence to transfer the share of the minors in the grove in question without obtaining the permission of the competent authority as is contemplated by Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It also held that under the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the plaintiffs as well as the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have acquired Bhumidhari rights and in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Awlamb and others v. Jata Shankar and others. 1968 ALJ 1108, the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 held the grove as tenants-in-common and not as Joint tenants. A categorical finding was recorded by the trial court that the provisions of the Hindu Law relating to restriction on transfer of coparcency property for legal necessity do not apply. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. The first appellate court has recorded the finding that on the date of execution of the said deed the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act did not apply to the grove in question as the said Act came to be enforced in the village in January. 1970, by notification dated 12.1.1970 which was published in the official gazette on 17.1.1970. The first appellate court was of the view that the sale deed in respect of the minor-plaintiffs was rightly executed by their mother who acted as a natural guardian and is operative in all respects. It was on the basis of this finding by the first appellate court that the decree passed by the trial court was reversed and the suit was dismissed.
7. Heard Sri .G. N. Verma learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants and Sri B. Dayal, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents, namely, Karneshwar Nath and Rajesh Kumar.
8. It is indubitable fact that the sale deed in respect of the undivided share of the minors, who undoubtedly were the members of the Joint Hindu Family, was excluded by Smt. Shanti Devi, who being the mother of the minors was their natural guardian. The fact that she executed the sale deed for legal necessity remains unchallenged. Moreover, it is a- finding of fact, recorded by the Courts below that the sale deed was executed for legal necessity to meet the expenses for the maintenance of the minors, marriage of their sisters, to purchase the residential house sold by their father and to discharge the debts due against him. This concurrent finding of fact has not been assailed in this Second Appeal. The fact, therefore, remains that Smt. Shanti Devi, mother and natural guardian of the minor plaintiffs had executed the sale deed in respect of the shares of the minors in the year, 1966 for due consideration in favour of Karneshwar Nath, defendant No. 4.
9. Before taking up the substantial question of law, which is involved in the present appeal, it would also be worthwhile to point out that the sale deed in question was anterior to the date on which the District Judge had granted permission with certain conditions to sell the shares of the minors- The sale deed, as said above, is dated 8.2.1966. The District Judge had granted permission on 29.10,1966 laying down certain conditions for transferring the shares of the minors. Since the permission had been obtained after more than 8 months of the execution of the sale deed, it was merely an otiose attempt on the part of the guardian of the minor-plaintiffs. The subsequent permission is of no avail and does not have the effect of ratifying the execution of the sale deed, if otherwise, it is found to be illegal. The sale deed obviously was executed by Smt. Shanti Devi on 8.2.1966 without obtaining the prior permission of the District Judge.
10. The only moot point which arises for determination and as is covered by substantial question of law framed for decision of the present appeal, is whether the sale deed in question is hit by the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. Sri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the sale deed in question is clearly in violation of the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act and as has been held in a plethora of decisions of this Court, other High Courts as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, is voidable at the instance of the minors or any person claiming under them as provided under Section 8 of the Act. To fortify his aforementioned contention, he relied upon the decisions in Ghansham Das v. Dr. Shiv Shankar Das, 1980 ALJ 130 ; Smt. Sursati Devi v. Joint Director of Consolidation, Basti and others, 1982 ALJ 1473 and Amirthan v. Kudumbah, AIR 1991 SC 1256. The view taken in these decisions is that the transfer made by a natural guardian of the minors without obtaining permission of the Court and without legal necessity is voidable and the minors can file a suit to set aside the same.
11. In order to understand the real import of the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants, a swift and short reference may be made to the provisions of Section 8 of the Act :
"8. (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this Section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation/protection or benefit of the minor's estate ; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.
(2) The natural guardian shall not without the previous permission of the Court-
(a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor, or
(b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority.
(c) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of sub-section (1) or subsection (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him."
12. On the basis of plain reading of the above provisions, it has been held that any transfer of the interest of the minor in an immovable property without the permission as required under Section 8(2) of the Act is voidable and the minors can successfully challenge the deed of transfer. The provisions of Section 8(2) have to be read in conjunction with other provisions of the Act as it is well-settled principle that every statute must be construed e x visceribus actus. i.e., within the four corners of the Act. When construing the terms of any provision found in a statute, the Court is bound to consider the parts of the statute which throw light on the intention of the Legislature and serve to show that the particular provision ought not to be construed as it would be if it stood alone and apart from the rest of the statute. Every clause of a statute must be construed with reference to the context of other clauses in the statute so as to make, as far as possible, a consistent enactment of the whole Statute. No part of a statute can be construed in isolation, because the intention of makers of law is to be found not in one part of the statute or another but in the entire enactment and that intention can best be gathered by viewing a particular part of the statute not in detachment from its context in the statute but in conjunction with its other provisions.
13. The Act undoubtedly codifies the law relating to minority and guardianship which was formerly based on the Hindu Text and usages and Judicial decisions. It takes away the right of de facto guardian and disentitles them to alienate the property of Hindu minor as is provided under Section 11 of the Act. Under Section 8 of the Act, restrictions have been provided regarding alienation of minors' property by the natural guardians. Thus, It Is under this Act, for the first time, the rights of natural guardian to make alienation has been curtailed and separately regulated. He cannot make alienation of property of his ward without obtaining permission of the District Judge in that behalf as envisaged under Section 8(2) of the Act. The provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act have to be read In conjunction with the provisions of Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the Act. After examining the aforesaid provisions, this Court in Arun Kumar and others v. Smt. Chandrawati Agarwal and others, AIR 1978 All 221, has held that the provisions of Section 6 excludes a Hindu minor having a natural guardian as defined by the Act for his undivided Interest in a Joint family property. This would, therefore, exclude a natural guardian as understood by the Act applying for the permission of the Court under Section 8(2) of the Act, The result would be that so long as the Hindu Law shall apply, a father or a natural guardian can alienate a minor's Interest In coparcenary property subject to the well-known conditions regarding benefit of the estate, etc. A reference was made to an earlier decision of the Bombay High Court, namely. Sakharam Shekhu v. Shiva Deorao, ILR 1974 1113, wherein following observations came to be made :
and Guardianship Act. Section 4(b) defines 'guardian' while clause (c) thereof defines 'natural guardian' as meaning any of persons mentioned in Section 6 deals with natural guardians of a Hindu minor. It mentions in the order of priority the persons who are entitled to be natural guardians of a Hindu minor. The opening words of the section, however, say that "the natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in Joint family property) are those mentioned below in the section'. The words 'excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family properly' which have been put in brackets make it clear that the undivided interest of a Hindu minor is excluded from the operation of the provisions of the Act and the subject-matter with which the Act deals is limited to guardians in respect of minor's person or in respect of minor's property other than his undivided interest in joint family property, whether they be natural guardians or testamentary guardians or guardians appointed or declared by Court. The concept of a guardian in respect of undivided interest in the joint family property is thus specifically excluded from the purview of the Act. The powers which a Hindu father, therefore, has as a natural guardian of his minor sons under Hindu Law, are kept intact and are not in any way affected by the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act so far as the undivided interest of a Hindu minor in the family property is concerned.
The restrictions contained in Section 8, therefore, do not apply in respect of the undivided interest of a minor in joint family property and consequently, Section 8 does not debar the Manager or Karta of a Joint Hindu Family from alienating joint family property including the interest of the minor without obtaining the previous permission of the Court, even if the Manager or Karta happens to be the natural guardian in respect of the separate property of any one or more of the minor coparceners. Of course, the alienation would have to be justified under Hindu Law but Section 8 does not require that any previous permission of the Court should be obtained before effecting such alienation. Under Hindu Law a Manager and Karta of a Joint Hindu Family can alienate Joint Hindu property so as to bind the interest of minor coparceners in such property provided the alienation is either for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. If the Manager and Karta happens to be the father he has certain additional powers of alienation under Hindu Law and in exercise of those powers he can alienate joint family property so as' to bind the interest of his minor coparceners in such properly. These powers are not at all curtailed or affected in any way by the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act."
There is yet 'another authority in Krishna Kant v. Magan Lal, AIR 1961 Guj 68, in which it was held that the restrictions contained in Section 8 do not apply in respect of the undivided interest of a minor in Joint family property and that Section 8 does not debar a Manager and Karta of a Joint Family from alienating joint family property without obtaining the previous permission of the Court even if the Manager and Karta happens to be the natural guardian in respect of the separate property of any one or more of the minor coparceners. Of course, the alienation would have to be justified under Hindu Law but Section 8 does not require that any previous permission of the Court should be obtained before effecting such alienation.
14. In the case of Subramaniam v. K. Gounder, AIR 1972 Mad 877, it was observed that the language of Section 8 of the Act in relation to the limitation of powers of management of the immovable property of the minor is in part materia with the provision contained in Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The expression 'minor's estate' and 'immovable property of the minor' occurring in Section 8 can apply only to definite properties belonging to the minor and not to a fluctuating interest of the minor in the undivided Hindu family. It was further held that the Manager or Karta of a joint family can alienate joint family properly so as to bind the interest of the minor coparceners in such property provided the alienation is either for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. If the Manager and Karta is the father, he has certain additional powers of alienation under Hindu Law and in exercise of those powers he can alienate joint family property so as to bind the interest of his minor sons in such property. It was held that the sale deeds executed by a Hindu father on behalf of himself and as a guardian of his minor son are not invalid. The Orissa High Court has also considered the provisions of Section 8 of the Act in the case of Sunamani Dei v. Babaji Das, AIR 1974 On 184, and held that when the minor and his mother constitute a Hindu joint family each with a moiety undivided interest belonging to the family, in the absence of the father, the mother as natural guardian can alienate even the minor's half share in the house under the personal law. Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act will not apply to such alienation.
15. There is yet another case in Girdhan Singh and another v. Anad Singh and others. AIR 1982 Raj, in which it has been held in para 12 of the report that as regards the question of taking permission from a competent court of law in that case, the Court was in agreement with view taken in the case of Sunamani Dei (supra), that when the minor and his mother constitute a Hindu joint family, each with a moiety of undivided interest in any immovable property belonging to the family, in the absence of father, the mother as natural guardian, can alienate even the minor's half share in the immovable property under the personal law. Section 8 of the Act will not apply to such alienation. This view also finds support from Smt. Suga Bai v. Hira Lal, AIR 1969 MP 32, in Smt. Sugga Bai's, case (supra) the question involved was whether joint interest of minor in family properly could be disposed of for the benefit of minor or family need by his guardian without the permission, as required under Section 8 of the Act. This question was answered in the negative holding that Section 8 does not apply to such transaction,
16. In Narayan Laxman Gilankar LJ. Udaykumar Kashinath Kaushik and others, AIR 1994 Bom 152, it was observed that the Act was enacted, as the preamble suggests, to amend, and codify only cerlain part of law relating to minority and guardianship among Hindus. It does not purport to cover the whole range of subject of guardianship. Section 2 makes it abundantly clear that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Section 6 deals with natural guardians of a Hindu minor in respect of his person as well as minor's properly. His or her undivided interest in joint family property is, however, specifically excluded from that section. Section 12 clearly lays down that guardian is not to be appointed for minor's undivided interest in joint family property where the property is under the management of an adult member of the family. I would do better, for the sake of clarity, to quote the relevant observations of the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case :
".....The interest of the minor in the joint family property is thus kept outside the reach of these provisions, leaving it to the natural guardian to deal with it in accordance with customary Hindu Law. Section 8 with which this matter is concerned will have to be viewed and interpreted keeping these basic features of the Act in view. Section 8 speaks of power of natural guardian in relation to 'immovable property of minor' which would mean minor's definite property and not his fluctuating indefinite interest in the joint family property. Language employed in Section 8 seems to be in pan materia with Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act and hence both will have to be viewed and construed similarly. Thus, it appears that intention of Section 8 is not to fetter the customary power of natural guardian in the matter of dealing with joint family property including minor's undivided share."
17. The cases referred to above represent a general consensus amongst different High Courts about the true scope of Section 8 of the Act and the legal position as has emerged from the above decisions, is that in view of the provisions of Sections 6 and 12 of the Act. Section 8(2) of the Act would not apply to the alienation of the minor's interest in the joint Hindu family property by his natural guardian and consequently, no permission from the District Judge as contemplated by Section 8(2) of the Act is required. The Girdhan Singh's, case (supra), is quite near to the facts of the present case. In that case, like the present one, the Hindu undivided family was constituted by minor and his mother. The undivided interest of the minor in the immovable property was alienated by mother as natural guardian of the minor without obtaining the permission of the District Judge. It was held that the transaction was not hit by Section 8 of the Act. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The trial court in the present case has proceeded on the wrong premise that the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were applicable and, therefore, the personal law did not apply. The first appellate court has rightly demonstrated that in the year. 1966 when the sale deed was executed, the provisions of U. P. Z. A and L. R. Act, were not in vogue in the area in which the grove in question is located. The notification to apply the aforesaid Act was made for the first time on 12.1.1970. Prior to the enforcement of U. P. Z, A. and L. R. Act. U. P. Tenancy Act. 1939 applied and an view of the provisions of Section 206D of the U. P. Tenancy Act, personal law was applicable and, therefore, under the traditional Hindu Law, mother who is the natural guardian of the minors, had the capacity and competence to alienate the undivided shares of the minors for legal necessity. A passing reference may also be made to the fact that the provisions of Section 8 of the Act do not apply to the agricultural land, as has been held in Smt. Sursati Devi's, case (supra) In that case, it was held that the ground that the permissions was required under Section 8 of the Act was not available as the said provision does not apply to agricultural land. If a grove is treated as forming part of agricultural holding in that event, the permission under Section 8(2) of the Act was not necessary.
18. In conclusion, it is held that Smt. Shanti Devi defendant No. 3 who was the mother and natural guardian of the minor-plaintiffs, was legally competent to alienate their undivided share in the grove, in question, for legal necessity in terms of the customary Hindu Law and that the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act were not at all attracted. The sale deed dated 8.2.1966 had the effect of passing title in favour of Kamleshwar Nath-defendant No. 4 and since he had validly acquired the rights in the grove under the sale deed., the gift deed dated 14.8.1997 executed by him in favour of his son defendant No. 5 Rajesh Kumar is valid, effective and operative. The substantial question of law is decided in favour of the defendants-Kamleshwar Nath and Rajesh Kumar.
19. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs to the contesting respondents--Kamleshwar Nath and Rajesh Kumar (defendant Nos. 4 and 5 respectively).