JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The father of the appellant Km. Shivika Garg and respondent Yash Garg applied under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to the District Judge for permission to mortgage property Aaraji No. 1039 Chandari, Municipal No. 18-C-2 Pokharpur for the purposes of obtaining loan for establishing a factory as both the aforesaid persons were minor at the relevant time. 3. The application on consideration has been rejected by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 10.6.2010. 4. The Court below in rejecting the application has returned a clear finding that the aforesaid property which is sought to be mortgaged is not the property of the minors but is the property of the H.U.F. The provisions of Section 8 of the Act are not applicable to juristic person such as H.U.F. 5. The aforesaid Act is applicable to persons as enumerated in Section 3 of the Act, which does not cover a juristic person such as HUF. 6. A reading of Section 8 of the Act discloses that it is applicable where the natural guardian of a Hindu Minor intends to mortgage or create a charge or transfer the property of the minor or to lease it out for a term the exceeding 5 years or for a term exceeding more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain maturity. 7. The aforesaid provision is to protect the interest of the minor from being vested by the guardian. It is not applicable in cases where the property belongs to HUF. In the event the property of HUF involves the interest of the minors, the said minors on attaining maturity are entitle to repudiate the contact. 8. In Sri Narayan Bal and others v. Sri Sridhar Sutar and others, AIR 1996 SC 2371 their lordships of the Supreme Court held that previous permission of the Court to sell joint hindu family property in which minor has an undivided share is not required. 9. 8. In Sri Narayan Bal and others v. Sri Sridhar Sutar and others, AIR 1996 SC 2371 their lordships of the Supreme Court held that previous permission of the Court to sell joint hindu family property in which minor has an undivided share is not required. 9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error in holding that Section 8 of the Act is not applicable to the properties of HUF and as such the application filed on behalf of minors, one of whom Yash Garg has now attained maturity, has rightly been rejected. 10. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. ————