JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal assails the correctness of the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by the IX Additional Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru in G & WC No.16/2020. 2. The said petition was filed by the appellant, mother of the minor child Master Yashas, who is aged about twelve years under Section 8(2)(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity), seeking permission to sell the petition schedule property standing in the name of her minor son and to use a portion of sale proceeds to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-derived from the said sale for use of the minor son for the purpose of meeting his day to day expenses, School expenses etc., and to deposit the balance sale proceeds in the name of her minor son. The trial Court by impugned order dated 28.01.2021 has dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal is preferred. 3. Though before the trial Court and in this appeal, it is shown as though the petition as well as the appeal is filed by the minor represented by his mother, in fact it is a petition filed by the minor guardian seeking permission to sell the petition schedule property. Therefore, wherever the word ‘petitioner/appellant’ is used, it refers to the guardian of the minor. 4. It is the case of the petitioner/appellant that she is the natural mother of the minor child Master Yashas. The mother of petitioner/appellant, Smt.M.R.Sunanda was the owner of Site No.29, Khata No.682, Assessment No.52/3A, situated at Karibovanahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. She gifted the same to the minor child Master Yashas vide registered gift deed dated 28.10.2014, showing the petitioner/appellant as his guardian and care taker till he attains majority. 5. It is further case of the petitioner/appellant that when the petition was filed the minor child Master Yashas was aged 12 years studying in Martin Luther English School. They are staying in a rented house on a monthly rental of Rs.7,500/-. 6. 5. It is further case of the petitioner/appellant that when the petition was filed the minor child Master Yashas was aged 12 years studying in Martin Luther English School. They are staying in a rented house on a monthly rental of Rs.7,500/-. 6. It is further case of the petitioner/appellant that she is a home maker and her husband was employed as a Driver on a monthly salary and on account of COVID-19 pandemic, he lost his job and they are not having any source of income to pay the rent, bear the monthly expenses and also to take care of the educational expenses of the minor child Master Yashas. That the owner of the house has directed them to vacate the residence as they have not paid the rents. To take a new premises on rent and also to take care of the minor child Master Yashas, they are not having any other source of income. 7. The petitioner/appellant has further contended that the petition schedule property is the only property that can be disposed of for the benefit of the minor and a portion of the proceeds would have to be used by the petitioner/appellant and her husband to tide over the current financial crisis faced by them. Then only the minor child be able to have a normal childhood and have an opportunity to succeed in his future life. If a portion of the sale proceeds are permitted to be used, the petitioner/appellant and her husband will be able to overcome their financial constraints and the same would ensure the welfare of the minor child. 8. The petitioner/appellant has further contended that if she gets a good purchaser, who intends to purchase the petition schedule property for an adequate consideration, she is ready and willing to sell the property on behalf of the minor and deposit the sale proceeds in a Nationalised Bank and utilise the same for the purpose of his welfare. The intended sale of petition schedule property is for legal necessity. 9. The intended sale of petition schedule property is for legal necessity. 9. Thus, petitioner/appellant is seeking permission to sell the petition schedule property which belongs to her minor child Master Yashas and out of the sale proceeds utilise Rs.15,00,000/- for the immediate use of the minor for the purpose of meeting his day to day expenses, school fees etc., and to deposit the balance amount in a Nationalised Bank in the name of minor child Master Yashas. 10. The undisputed facts are that originally the petition schedule premises belonged to the maternal grand-mother of the minor child and vide registered gift deed dated 28.10.2014, she gifted the same in favour of her grand son i.e, the minor child Master Yashas. She has also made petitioner/appellant as his guardian. 11. Now, through the petition filed under Section 8(2) (a) of the Act, petitioner/appellant is seeking permission of the Court to sell the petition schedule property and out of the sale proceeds to utilise a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-to tide over the financial crisis faced by her and her husband and also for the welfare of the minor child and the deposit the balance in the name of minor child Master Yashas to be used for his welfare. 12. Before the trial Court, the petitioner/appellant examined herself as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got marked six documents as Ex.P1 to 6. 13. By the impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/appellant has come up with this appeal under Section 8(2) (a) of the Act. 14. We have heard Sri.Goutham and Sri.Lakshmikant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/appellant and perused the material available on record. 15. Learned counsel representing the petitioner/appellant submitted that on account of COVID19 pandemic the husband of the petitioner/appellant and father of the minor child lost his job and as such they are not having any other source of income either to take care of themselves or the minor child including payment of rent, school fees and other expenses of the minor child. 16. 16. Learned counsel further submitted that except the petition schedule property, the parents of the minor child do not have any other property and therefore, if the petition schedule property is permitted to be sold, out of the sale proceeds, petitioner/appellant and her husband intend to utilize Rs.15,00,000/- to tide over the financial crisis and also for the welfare of the minor child and balance amount would be deposited in the name of the minor child to be used for his benefit. 17. Section 8 of the Act deals with the powers of natural guardian. As evident from sub-section (1), a natural guardian of a hindu minor is authorised to do only those acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor’s estate, but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by personal covenant. 18. However, as per sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, a guardian of a minor has no authority to alienate or dispose of the minor’s property without the permission of the Court. In fact, as per sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. 19. Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act restricts the power of the Court to grant permission to the natural guardian to alienate the minor’s property as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act, only for the purpose of necessity and for an evident advantage to the minor only. 20. In other words under sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act, the Court may grant permission to alienate the minor’s property only for his legal necessity or benefit to the estate. 21. Admittedly, in the present case, petitioner/appellant is seeking permission to sell the petition schedule property belonging to minor child Master Yashas, not for his legal necessity or benefit to the estate, but to tide over the financial crisis faced by her and her husband. 22. Being the parents and natural guardians of the minor child Master Yashas, it is the duty and responsibility of petitioner/appellant and her husband to take care of him including his education and other expenses. 22. Being the parents and natural guardians of the minor child Master Yashas, it is the duty and responsibility of petitioner/appellant and her husband to take care of him including his education and other expenses. In order to over come their financial crisis, they cannot dispose of the minor’s property and to use a portion of the sale proceeds for their own expenses and also that of the minor child and deposit the balance in the name of the minor child for his use in future. The legal necessity of the minor does not include the necessity of the guardian or any other person even in the face of a pandemic like COVID-19. Certainly, the intended alienation of the petition schedule property is not for the benefit to the estate of the minor. 23. The benefit to the estate of the minor is when it is fetching an exceptionally good price and it is beneficial to sell the same rather than keep it as a dead investment. Legal necessity of the minor is when the disposal of the property is required for the education or other imminent requirements of the minor child. Even in the absence of the property standing in the name of the minor child, petitioner/appellant and her husband, being the parents and natural guardians are duty bound to take care of him. Such being the case, they cannot use the property of the minor for their own benefit by contending that on account of the COVID-19 pandemic situation, it has become inevitable for them to sell the same. 24. When the petitioner/appellant is seeking permission to sell the petition schedule property for the purpose of utilising a portion of the sale proceeds -to be precise Rs.15,00,000/- to tide over the financial crisis and keep the balance in the name of the minor child, admittedly, there are no pleading that the intending alienation is for necessity or for the evident advantage to the minor. Neither the trial Court nor this Court has before it any material to hold that the intended alienation is for the necessity or evident advantage to the minor. 25. Taking into consideration all these aspects, in our view the trial Court has rightly refused the permission and dismissed the petition. There is no justification for interfering with the impugned order. 26. 25. Taking into consideration all these aspects, in our view the trial Court has rightly refused the permission and dismissed the petition. There is no justification for interfering with the impugned order. 26. In view of aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.