ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar for the appellant. 2. By way of this appeal, the appellant-original applicant has assailed the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jamnagar in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4 of 2023. In the said order, permission which was sought for, by the appellant-original applicant to sell the undivided share of two minor children and to manage and to partition of the properties mentioned in the schedule-A annexed with the main application. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under :- 3.1 Anilbhai Abhubhai Odedra who is the husband of the appellant-original applicant died on 22.04.2021 leaving behind him, the present appellant and two minors children namely daughter Diptiben Anilbhai Odedra and son Harsh Anilbhai Odedra. The deceased was holding the said property situated at District Jamnagar City, Jamnagar, having revenue survey 562/paiki 1/paiki 1 being Khata No.790, which is more particularly mentioned in the schedule-A annexed with the Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4 of 2023 and deceased Anilbhai Abhubhai Odedra is co-owner of rest of the properties which are mentioned in the schedule-A of the application. Out of the said lands as mentioned in schedule-A, few lands were ordered to be non-agricultural land vide various orders passed by the Collector. The permission was sought for by the wife of the deceased-Anilbhai Abhubhai Odedra praying for an appointment of the guardian and also seeking permission to administer, develop, partition and to sell the properties mentioned in the schedule-A. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jamnagar vide order dated 17.07.2023. 3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the present appellant is before this Court. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the properties, which are mentioned in schedule-A, more particularly at Serial No.A belong to the sole ownership of the deceased-Anilbhai Abhubhai Odedra who had expired on 22.04.2021 and rest of the properties stands in the name of co-owner Anilbhai Odedra and other persons. The details of such properties are mentioned in schedule-A. It is further submitted that an application was filed for an appointment of a guardian and seeking permission to partition, administer, develop and to sell those properties. Since the minors have interest in the properties, the permission was sought for. However, the said application came to be dismissed. 5. The details of such properties are mentioned in schedule-A. It is further submitted that an application was filed for an appointment of a guardian and seeking permission to partition, administer, develop and to sell those properties. Since the minors have interest in the properties, the permission was sought for. However, the said application came to be dismissed. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the provisions of Section 8(2) (a) and (b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which are reproduced as under; “(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 terms extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority.” 6. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that since minors have an undivided share in the properties, no permission as such is required from the Court for an appointment of a Guardian and also for selling and/ or developing the properties in question. The documents were placed on record, which show that the some of the properties were converted into non- agricultural land by the orders of the Collector. The orders dated 12.12.2011 and 17.05.2022 are placed on record and for rest of the lands, revenue record was placed on record. However, the learned Trial Court has gravelly erred in not considering the records and the documents placed on record and rejected the application. 7. In support of his submission, the learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in cases of Sankhala (Mali) Kantaben Wd/o Bharatbhai Laljibhai Vs. Rabari Panchabhai Chelabhai reported in 2020(0) AIJEL-HC 242147, Jagrutiben Dharmeshbhai Suhagiya Vs. None reported in 2023(0) AIJELHC 245841 and in the case of Bhatt Kirti Vs. Na passed in R/First Appeal No.1225 of 2023. 7.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon para Nos.4, 5 and 6 of the case of Sankhala (Mali) Kantaben Wd/o Bharatbhai Laljibhai (supra), which are reproduced hereinunder; 4. None reported in 2023(0) AIJELHC 245841 and in the case of Bhatt Kirti Vs. Na passed in R/First Appeal No.1225 of 2023. 7.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance upon para Nos.4, 5 and 6 of the case of Sankhala (Mali) Kantaben Wd/o Bharatbhai Laljibhai (supra), which are reproduced hereinunder; 4. Once undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is under the management of an adult member of the family no guardian can be appointed except by the High Court and even the natural guardian would not be a guardian in respect of undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property and consequently section 8(2) which speaks about requirement of permission by natural guardian before selling the property of a minor would have no application if the property is undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property. Section 8(2) appears to be contemplating the permission by natural guardian in respect of the properties of the minor which can be dealt with by natural guardian. This cannot however be understood to say that welfare of the minor would be irrelevant in the event of sale of his undivided interest in the joint family property. His welfare will still be a predominant consideration and annulment of sale can always be sought by minor in accordance with law, if so advised. 5. The logic behind the exclusion of natural guardian being such guardian in respect of undivided interest of a minor in the joint family property appears to be two fold (01) the manager is entitled to deal with undivided shares in the interest of the family and; (02) the undivided share is not fixed; but is variable with the change in the constitution of the family and unless the share is divided or partitioned, the interest would not be acquired by the minor so that the natural guardian can deal with the same. It appears that with the said logic, no permission inter-alia to convey the undivided interest of a minor in the joint family property from the manager of such property has been contemplated under sub-section(2) of Section 8. 6. It appears that with the said logic, no permission inter-alia to convey the undivided interest of a minor in the joint family property from the manager of such property has been contemplated under sub-section(2) of Section 8. 6. Being oblivious to the above-referred factual and legal position, the trial Court landed itself in a serious error in rejecting the application on the ground that the interest of the welfare of the minor was not involved in the sale and the mother had alternative source to generate income. Although the Court below could not have granted the application for different reason i.e. no permission was required by Karta of the joint family property instead of entertaining the application and rejecting the case on merits.” 7.2 Learned advocate for the appellant has also placed reliance upon para No.8 and 9 of the case of Jagrutiben Dharmeshbhai Suhagiya (supra), which are reproduced hereinunder; “8. It appears from the law laid down by this Court that as far as Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is concerned, while the same provides that the natural guardian shall not, without previous permission of the Court, alienate any immovable property of a minor, the learned Coordinate Bench has differentiated between the property of a minor and the undivided interest of a minor in the joint family property. It clearly appears that the learned Coordinate Bench has laid down the law, which is still in force, as much as it was on the date of the judgement that ‘the restrictions’ contained in Section 8 i.e. the requirement of obtaining previous permission of the Court before alienating immovable property of a minor would not apply in respect of an undivided interest of a minor in joint family property and whereas the Manager or Karta of the joint property could alienate the property without obtaining prior permission of the Court. It is also clarified that the concept of a guardian in respect of an undivided interest of a minor in joint family property is excluded from the scope and purview of the Act and whereas the Act does not contemplate and deal with any guardians in respect of an undivided interest of a minor in a joint family property. It is also clarified that the concept of a guardian in respect of an undivided interest of a minor in joint family property is excluded from the scope and purview of the Act and whereas the Act does not contemplate and deal with any guardians in respect of an undivided interest of a minor in a joint family property. According to the learned Coordinate Bench, Section 8 only deals with the powers and restrictions on powers of the natural guardians in respect of a minor’s property, other than undivided interest in joint family property and whereas the words ‘minors estate’ and ‘immovable property’ of the minor must be construed, so as to mean, other than undivided interest of a minor in joint family property. It also appears that having held as above, the learned Coordinate Bench had come to the conclusion that since the way the law does not require any permission for alienating undivided interest of a minor in joint family property, therefore, an application for such permission was misconceived. 9. It also appears that the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Narayan Lal (supra) had, though not referred to the decision of this Court referred to herein above, yet the very view had been reiterated by the Hon’ble Court at paragraph 5 of the said decision and whereas the said paragraph is reproduced herein below for benefit:- 5. With regard o the undivided interest of the Hindu minor in joint family property, the provisions afore-culled are beads of the same string and need be viewed in a single glimpse, simultaneously in conjunction with each other. Each provisions, and in particular Section 8, cannot be viewed in isolation. If read together the intent of the legislative in this beneficial legislation becomes manifest. Ordinarily the law does not envisage a natural guardian of the undivided interest of a Hindu minor in joint family property. The natural guardian of the property of a Hindu minor, other than the undivided interest in joint family property, is alone contemplated under Section 8, whereunder his powers and duties are defined. Section 12 carves out an exception to the rule that should there be no adult member of the joint family in management of the joint family property, in which the minor has an undivided interest, a guardian may be appointed; but ordinarily no guardian shall be appointed for such undivided interest of the minor. Section 12 carves out an exception to the rule that should there be no adult member of the joint family in management of the joint family property, in which the minor has an undivided interest, a guardian may be appointed; but ordinarily no guardian shall be appointed for such undivided interest of the minor. The adult member of the family in the management of the Joint Hindu Family property may be a male or a female, not necessarily the Karta. The power of the High Court otherwise to appoint a guardian, in situations justifying, has been preserved. This is the legislative scheme on the subject. Under Section 8 a natural guardian of the property of the Hindu minor, before he disposes of any immovable property of the minor, must seek permission of the court. But since there need be no natural guardian for the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property, as provided under sections 6 to 12 of the Act, the previous permission of the Court under Section 8 of disposing of the undivided interest of the minor in the joint family property is not required. The joint Hindu family by itself is a legal entity capable of acting through its Karta and other adult members of the family in management of the joint Hindu family property. Thus section 8 in view of the express terms of Sections 6 and 12, would not be applicable where a joint Hindu family property is sold/disposed of by the Karta involving an undivided interest of the minor in the said joint Hindu family property. The question posed at the outset therefore is so answered.” 7.3 Learned advocate for the appellant has also placed reliance upon para No.4 of an oral order passed in the case of Bhatt Kirti Vs. Na passed in R/First Appeal No.1225 of 2023, which is reproduced hereinunder; “4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned judgement, this Court is of the considered view that, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sankhala (Mali) Kantaben Bharatbhai (supra), has categorically observed that in the case of an undivided share of a minor in joint family property, no permission of Court would be necessary. In the facts of the present case, leave was sought by the mother of the minor and father has already expired. In the facts of the present case, leave was sought by the mother of the minor and father has already expired. The case is covered by the judgement of the learned Single Judge as referred above and therefore, without much discussion, the impugned order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vadodara in CMA DC No.35 of 2022 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is permitted to sell the undivided share of minor son in the joint family property.” 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant and the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the issue is squarely covered. Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956, envisages that a natural guardian shall not be permitted to either sale or exchange the properties without the previous permission of the Court. The restriction imposed in Section 8 of the said Act, does not restrict the right of a natural guardian to transfer or sell the immovable property of the minor. The lands in question are self acquired properties of deceased-Anilbhai Abhubhai Odedra. After the demise of Anilbhai Abhubhai Odedra, the widow and minor children shall have undivided share in those lands. In the present case, one property bearing Survey No.562 paiki-1/paiki-1 belongs to the sole ownership of the deceased-Anilbhai Abhubhai Odedra and the deceased had a share in rest of the properties. The present appellant and minors being the legal heirs of the deceased holding the property as co-owners. 9. So far as the rest of the properties which are mentioned in schedule-A (B to G) are concerned, the deceased-Anilbhai Abhubhai Odedra was the co-owner undivided share. Upon the death of deceased-Anilbhai Abhubhai Odedra, the said undivided share of the deceased came to the share of appellant and the minor children. Thus, the minors have an undivided share in such properties. Since the law does not envisage any prior permission from the Court for alienating undivided interest of minor in joint family property, this Court is of the view that the permission as sought for in the application, was not required since the minor children had an undivided interest in the properties in question and this view has been fortified in the above referred decisions. 10. 10. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed and it is allowed. The order dated 17.07.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jamnagar in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4 of 2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.