ORDER : Alok Awasthi, J. With consent of the parties heard finally. 2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant under Section 8(5) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (in short "Act of 1956") being aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned First District Judge, Depalpur, District Indore in MJC No. 08/2024, whereby application filed by the appellant No. 3 - Natural guardian and mother of appellant Nos. 1 & 2 regarding permission to sell immovable property jointly recorded in the names of minor children and herself, was rejected. 3. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant No. 3, Smt. Savitri Bai, is the natural and legal guardian of the Appellant Nos. 1 (Kumari Roshni, aged 16 years) and 2 (Master Praveen, aged 14 years), who are minors. She is the widow of Late Shri Bharat Gehlot, who passed away on 02.03.2021. The marriage between Appellant No. 3 and Late Bharat Gehlot was solemnized according to the Hindu Rites and Customs. Out of this wedlock, the two children were born. After the sad demise of Bharat Gehlot, the family has been entirely dependent upon appellant No. 3. 4. Late Shri Bharat Gehlot, during his lifetime and from his self- acquired income, purchased two agricultural plots situated at Survey No.89/5 admeasuring 0.011 hectares (around 1200 Square feet) and Survey No. 89/6, admeasuring 0.011 hectares (around 1200 Square feet), in Village Kalibillod, Tehsil Depalpur, District Indore (M.P.). Vide order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Learned Naib Tehsildar, the said properties were mutated in the names of Appellant Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as his legal heirs. The total market value of the land is approximately Rs.16,08,000/-, as per government guideline rates. Further, due to the untimely death of her husband, appellant No. 3 has no source of income and is entirely dependent upon borrowed sums to manage household expenses, including the school fees and daily needs of her minor children. The appellant No.3 intends to relocate to near Indore City to provide a better environment and quality education 5. For the said purpose, the Appellant No.3 sought permission from the learned Court to sell the above-described immovable property. The appellant No.3 intends to relocate to near Indore City to provide a better environment and quality education 5. For the said purpose, the Appellant No.3 sought permission from the learned Court to sell the above-described immovable property. She undertook before the Court that the consideration from the sale would be exclusively used for the benefit and welfare of the minor children and further declared her willingness to abide by any condition imposed by the competent court. 6. Learned trial Court, vide order dated 30.06.2025, rejected the application on the ground that the present schooling details of the children were not specifically mentioned and that government schools are available in the village itself. The learned Court also observed that the application does not satisfy the test of “necessity” or “benefit” as required under Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, present appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial Court has gravely erred in law and on facts by rejecting the application, despite the undisputed financial hardship faced by appellant No. 3, a widow, and the natural guardian of two minor children, who is struggling to provide education and day-to- day sustenance. The learned trial Court has also not considered that the sole purpose of the proposed sale was to secure better educational opportunities and a dignified life for the minor appellant Nos. 1 & 2, which is paramount important under the Act. The impugned order was passed only on the ground of precise school details and without considering the broader circumstances that the current village lacks adequate facilities. Learned trial Court has also failed to consider the fact that the property in question was the self-acquired by Late Shri Bharat Gehlot, the deceased father of the minor appellant Nos. 1 & 2, and appellant No. 3, as natural guardian, sought permission to utilize its value solely for the benefit of the minors. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and contended that trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order after considering each and every aspect of the case. 9. Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the record. 10. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer and contended that trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order after considering each and every aspect of the case. 9. Learned counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the record. 10. Having considered submissions advanced, issue raised for consideration in this appeal is as to "Whether appellant No. 3 being natural guardian and joint holder of properties in question alongwith minors, required to seek permission under Section 8 of Act to alienate property." 11. Perusal of record shows that late Shri Bharat Gehlot purchased the agricultural land situated at Survey No.89/5 admeasuring 0.011 hectares (around 1200 Square feet) and Survey No. 89/6, admeasuring 0.011 hectares (around 1200 Square feet), in Village Kalibillod, Tehsil Depalpur, District Indore. He expired on 02.03.2021, leaving behind appellant No. 3 Savitri Bai, one daughter Kumari Roshni and son Praveen. Consequently, vide order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Naib Tehsildar, the said properties were mutated in the names of Appellant Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as his legal heirs. Un-disputedly, agriculture land is joint Hindu Family property with fluctuating interest of legal representatives of late Shri Bharat Gehlot. 12. In light of aforesaid factual background, it would be necessary to delve into scheme of Act. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act has been passed to amend and codify law relating to minority and Guardianship amongst the Hindus as can be observed from Section 2 of the Act. Its provisions are in-addition to and not in derogation of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Section 6 of Act deals with natural Guardian of Hindu minor and his property. Significantly, un-divided interest of minor in joint family property is specifically excluded from application of Section 6 of the Act. Section 12 of the Act further clarifies that a guardian need not be appointed for dealing with minors' undivided interest in joint family property, which is under management of adult member of family. Scheme of Act as discernible from Sections 2, 5, 6, 9 and 12 of Act suggests undivided interest of minor in joint family property is kept outside of purview of Act and natural guardian has been left to deal with it in accordance with the customary Hindu Law. In other words, provisions of Act deals with individual and definite immovable property of minor. 13. In other words, provisions of Act deals with individual and definite immovable property of minor. 13. The Section 8 of the Act reads as under : "8. Powers of natural guardian.-- (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. (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 sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or by any person claiming under him. (4) No court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) except in the case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor. (5) The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), shall apply to and in respect of an application for obtaining permission of the Court under sub-section (2) in all respects as if it were an application for obtaining the permission of the court under section 29 of that Act, and in particular-- (a) proceedings in connection with the application shall be deemed to be proceedings under that Act within the meaning of section 4A thereof; (b) the court shall observe the procedure and have the powers specified in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 31 of that Act; and (c) an appeal shall lie from an order of the court refusing permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2) of this section to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of that Court. In this section "Court" means the city civil Court or a district Court or a Court empowered under Section 4A of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890), within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property in respect of which the application is made is situate, and where the immovable property is situate within the jurisdiction of more than one such Court, means the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate." 14. Plain reading of aforesaid Section depicts that it does not expressly exclude undivided interest of minor in joint family property. However, Section 8 cannot be read in isolation, which would have to be read along with Sections 6, 9 and 12. Harmonious reading of which, in the backdrop of preamble of Act would show restrictions imposed by Section 8 cannot be applied to fluctuating interest of minors in undivided share in joint family property. Therefore, natural guardian being eldest member of joint family, in-charge of property, can exercise powers to deal with minors in joint family property keeping in mind aspect of legal necessity, interest and benefit of minor. Needless to state that no such alienation would be voidable at instance of minor if it is proved that same was made for legal necessity and for benefit of minor. 15. On this aspect, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sri Narayan Bal and Others Vs. Shridhar Sutar and Others reported in 1996 (8) SCC 54 , wherein it has been held that:- "With regard to 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 legislature 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 where under his powers and duties are defined. 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 where under 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. 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 Section 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 Section 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. 16. In the cumulative consideration and findings given, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court has ignored all these aspects, which is necessary for welfare of the minor children. Hence, the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned First District Judge, District Indore in MJC GW No. 08/2024 suffers from illegality, perversity and deserves to be dismissed. 17. Hence, the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned First District Judge, District Indore in MJC GW No. 08/2024 suffers from illegality, perversity and deserves to be dismissed. 17. In the result, this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the appellant No. 3 - Savitri Bai / Natural Guardian of appellant Nos. 1 & 2 is at liberty to sell the immovable property situated at Village Kalibillod, Tehsil Depalpur, District Indore bearing Survey Nos. 89/5 and 89/6, each admeasuring 0.011 hectares (around 1200 square feet each) for the welfare, maintenance and educational needs of minors / appellant Nos. 1/Kumari Roshni & 2/ Master Praveen. 18. Appellant No. 3 Savitri Bai is also directed to make a Fixed Deposit of 2/3rd amount of the total amount, to be received by her through selling the above properties, in a Nationalized Bank and the interest amount thereof, be used for the education of the minor children i.e. appellant Nos. 1 & 2. Each of the appellant Nos. 1/Kumari Roshni & 2 Master Praveen will receive the 1/3rd of consideration amount so deposited by their natural guardian i.e. appellant No. 3/Savitri Bai on attaining the age of majority. 19. In result, appeal is hereby disposed off. The impugned impugned order dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned First District Judge, District Indore in MJC GW No. 08/2024, is hereby quashed and set aside. C.C. as per rules.