JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India praying for declaration that the respondents, their servants and agents have no jurisdiction to require the petitioners to obtain Court’s order merely for the purpose of registering the document and entering the same in the village records as and when presented for verification. 2. Heard Mr. D.V. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for Mr. N.P. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Rohan Yagnik, learned AGP for the respondent – State. 3. Mr. D.V. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the property in question does not belong to the minors and their names are only entered in village form 7 X 12 subsequently to show them as members of the family of an agriculturist. He has referred to Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, which are quoted below : “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 realization, protection or benefit of the minor’s estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. 8(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. (3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of subsection (1) or subsection (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or by any person claiming under him.” He has submitted that perusal of the documents produced on record shows that minors are the children of the agriculturist and their names are entered in the 7 X 12 village form as members of the family of an agriculturist. He has submitted that the head of the family has purchased the property in his personal capacity and the same is also shown in the income-tax and wealth tax records as his personal property. He has submitted that the head of the family has purchased the property in his personal capacity and the same is also shown in the income-tax and wealth tax records as his personal property. He has submitted that it is not open for an authority to direct any person to obtain a Court’s order for execution of any document. He has drawn attention of the Court to the document at Annexure-C and submitted that when the provision of Section 8(3) of the Act is very clear, then, the authority cannot deny the registration of the document. 4. In support of the above submission, Mr. Parikh has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Surta Singh vs. Pritam Singh, reported in AIR 1983 Punjab And Haryana 114, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under : “To impeach a transfer of immovable property by the certificated guardian without the permission of a Court, the minor must sue within the prescribed period of three years after attaining majority. Once that is so a fortiori it follows that the position of a Hindu minor assailing a similar transaction of his natural guardian is no different and identical consideration would be applicable to the case under Section 8(3) of the 1956 Act. A transfer of immovable property by the natural guardian of a Hindu minor far from being void or being a nullity is in fact one which fully binds the other party. The minor can always avail the benefit thereof and after ratifying or accepting the same enforce the contract. Such a transaction is perfectly valid until duly avoided by the minor. Not only that precedent is unanimous that he can avoid the same only by restoration of any benefits received under such a transfer and if he does not choose to do so, the Court would refuse to avoid such a transfer. The minor is an co nominee party in the transfer made by the guardian on his behalf. The minor being co nominee party to the transaction which is merely voidable it can not lie in his mouth to say that it is a nullity or is non est which he can conveniently ignore at this bidding. The minor is an co nominee party in the transfer made by the guardian on his behalf. The minor being co nominee party to the transaction which is merely voidable it can not lie in his mouth to say that it is a nullity or is non est which he can conveniently ignore at this bidding. A suit for possession by avoiding the transfer by the guardian in violation of S.8(2) is in essence nothing more than seeking a setting aside of the transfer and as a consequential relief to claim possession. Therefore, as long as the transaction by the guardian retains its validity, the relief of possession cannot possibly be granted.” 5. He has further relied on the decision of Full Bench in the case of Jadav Prabhatbhai Jethabhai vs. Parmar Karsanbhai Dhulabhai, reported in 2001 (1) GLR 16 , wherein it is held as under : “Under the Old Hindu law, a de facto guardian enjoyed the same powers as a natural guardian. Alienation by a natural guardian not supported by benefit or necessity is only voidable and is valid unless set aside. Such an alienation by a de facto guardian is void and the minor on attaining majority can ignore it or ratify it and need not be set aside. However, for filing a suit for declaration, possession of mesne profit, the period of limitation is prescribed. For possession from an alienee, the period of limitation is 12 years. The suit has been filed, admittedly after period of limitation. The period of limitation prescribed in Art.60 assumes wider significance in a case when the minor on attaining the majority files a suit for possession on the premise that the de facto guardian had alienated his property without authority and that there was no legal necessity for the de facto guardian to alienate the property. The Suit for setting aside such a transaction is required to be filed within a period of three years from the date of attaining majority. Even if the Suit is filed on the basis of title without seeking the relief of quashing the impugned transaction made by the de facto guardian it is necessary to consider the issue of limitation as to at what point of time the legal disability was concluded for filing the suit. Even if the Suit is filed on the basis of title without seeking the relief of quashing the impugned transaction made by the de facto guardian it is necessary to consider the issue of limitation as to at what point of time the legal disability was concluded for filing the suit. A ward on his attaining the age of majority like that on cessation of the disability, fails to pursue the legal remedy or to initiate a legal battle by filing a suit, he would not be entitled to file suit, and therefore, the person in possession of the property would get his possession or title as the case may be perfected upon the extinguishment of the right to file a suit in relation to a property. It is, therefore, very clear that a ward on his attaining the age of majority like that on cessation of the disability, fails to pursue the legal remedy or to initiate a legal battle by filing a suit, he would not be entitled to file suit, and therefore, the person in possession of the property would get his possession or title as the case may be perfected upon the extinguishment of the right to file a suit in relation to a property.” 6. He has further relied on the decision in the case of Ramadas Menon vs. Sreedevi, reported in AIR 2004 Kerala 126, wherein it is held as under : “8. It is seen that the reference was answered in the decision reported in Madhukar Viswanath v. Madhao, (1999) 9 SCC 446 . The Supreme Court took the view that it was not necessary to decide the question in the particular facts of the case, Subsequently, the Supreme Court in another decision reported in Viswambhar v. Laxminarayan (2001) 6 SCC 163 : ( AIR 2001 SC 2607 ) considered Section 8 of the Act and held as follows (at page 2610 of AIR) “The question is, in such circumstances, are the alienations void or voidable ? In Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, it is laid down, inter alia, that the natural guardian shall not, without previous permission of the Court, transfer by sale any part of the immovable property of the minor. In Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, it is laid down, inter alia, that the natural guardian shall not, without previous permission of the Court, transfer by sale any part of the immovable property of the minor. In subsection (3) of the said section, it is specifically provided that any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub section (2) is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. There is, therefore, little scope or doubt that the alienations made by Laxmibai which are under challenge in the suit were voidable at the instance of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were required to get the alienations set aside if they wanted to avoid the transfers and regain the properties from the purchasers”. In view of the above decision, it is now clear that the alienations have to be challenged and without setting aside the alienation, no relief can be obtained. 8. In the above view of the matter, we hold that there should be a prayer to set aside the alienation effected by the natural guardian without the Court’s sanction. The plaintiff cannot merely ignore the sale deed.” 7. He has further relied on the decision in the case of Nangaliamma Bhavaniamma vs. Gopalkrishnan Nair and Ors., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 785 , wherein it Apex Court has observed as under : “7. But the learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the High Court had misconstrued the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. Section 8(1) empowers the natural guardian of a Hindu minor to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of a minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor’s estate subject to two exceptions of which we may only note the exception carved out in subsection (2) of Section 8. Section 8(2) provides that the natural guardian shall not without the previous permission of the Court, inter alia, transfer by way of a sale any part of the immovable property of a minor. The effect of violation of this provision has been provided for in the section itself under subsection (3). Section 8(2) provides that the natural guardian shall not without the previous permission of the Court, inter alia, transfer by way of a sale any part of the immovable property of a minor. The effect of violation of this provision has been provided for in the section itself under subsection (3). This subsection reads : “8(3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of subsection (1) or subsection (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or by any person claiming under him.” 8. In view of the express language used, it is clear that the transaction entered into by the natural guardian in contravention of subsection (2) was not void but merely voidable at the instance of the minor. To hold that the transaction in violation of Section 8(2) is void would not only be contrary to the plain words of the statute but would also deprive the minor of the right to affirm or ratify the transaction upon attaining majority. This Court in Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan has also held that such transactions are not void but merely voidable. It was also held that a suit must be filed by a minor in order to avoid the transaction within the period prescribed under Article 60 of the Limitation Act. The High Court did not consider the issue of limitation at all in view of its finding on the effect of a violation of Section 8(2) of the Act. As the conclusion of the High Court on this aspect of matter is unsustainable, the impugned decision must be set aside.” 8. On the other hand, Mr. Rohan Yagnik, learned AGP appearing for the respondent has submitted that the authority has never denied to register the document. He has submitted that the petitioner himself has stated in the petition that the property in question is H.U.F. property. He has further submitted that in other similar cases the Court has granted permission to sell the property on behalf of the minor. 9. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and have gone through the averments made in the petition and the documents produced on record as well as the decisions cited by Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioners. 9. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and have gone through the averments made in the petition and the documents produced on record as well as the decisions cited by Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is clear that Karta of the family has purchased the property in his personal capacity and the same is also shown in the records of income tax and wealth tax as having purchased in his personal capacity of Karta. It is required to be noted that on the similar issue involved in present petition various High Courts as well as Apex Court have considered the issue involved in the present petition. In view of the observations laid down by the different High Courts as well as Apex Court and in light of the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. The respondent authority is directed to register document without insisting upon Court’s order. 10. In view of disposal of main matter, the Civil Application does not survive. Hence it is disposed of accordingly.