Under family law, the rights and the liabilities of the minor coparceners have always remained

an undermined area of discussion. It is somewhat believed that with the birth of a minor, he or
she holds a right over the ancestral property. However, numerous facets dealing with minor
coparceners remain untold in the area of law. Taking these notions into account, our paper
focuses on internalizing various fundamental principles of laws surrounding the minor
coparceners, and it highlights some controversial areas pertaining to this portion of the law.
Moreover, this discussion mainly has taken property and its partition into consideration to
carefully study and determine the dimensions of the contemporary area of law revolving around
minor coparceners. Also, several miscellaneous ambits of minor coparceners are taken into
consideration like the liabilities of minor coparceners, the position of minor coparceners at the
time of reunion, the possibility for a minor to be a Karta et al. in consideration of various case
laws.

The preliminary aim of this paper is to comprehend the dimensions of the coparcenary under
the Mitakshara law by way of visiting some of the rudimentary principles of the coparcenary.
Afterward, the paper emphasizes its main aim, i.e. to internalize and evaluate the prominence
of minor coparcener concerning the property of the joint family. Under such discussion, the
paper attempts to lay down the different circumstances where a minor can have the right over
coparcenary property and also the scope of conceivable rights and obligations of minors.

The domain of the following issue is not easy to cover in an application of its nature. So, this
paper is not exhaustive per se due to the inhibition of time and limited handiness of the
resources. Therefore, the existing paper is restricted to the maiden concerns associated with
minor coparcener.

By because most of the provisions about the contemporary issue are well settled, this paper has
adopted both descriptive as well as analytical ways of writing. This paper is primarily based
A Study of Minor Coparceners

Meaning of the Minor Coparcenary

Since the moment a child is born in a Hindu joint family, he or she becomes entitled to the right
over the coparcenary property.8 Minor coparceners have the option of becoming a major
coparcener after attaining the age of 18 years. It is a well-settled assumption that the expenses
incurred for carrying out the family business fall under the matter of family necessities. The
consent of the family must be present to practice such a business indicating that if in the normal
course of business, any debt or liability is incurred, all coparceners shall be affected by it.
However, the liability of the family members is limited to the extent of their interests in the
family property. This makes it evident that a minor coparcener shall only be held liable in the
case where they are the contracting party along with their managers, or in case they have
rectified the contract enforced by their manager. However, the same position can vary for the
minor coparcener who cannot be held personally liable until and unless he or she has rectified
such contract after attaining the majority. Also, a minor coparcener has the power to validly
ask to reopen the partition if it can be established that the partition done during his or her
minority was prima facie prejudicial, unfair, and unjust.9

Let us consider a different scenario, if there has been a business partition or there exists any
property registered under joint names with the minor coparcener being a party to this
transaction, then in that contractual affair, a minor coparcener is not competent enough to enter
into his or her legal contract. However, it can only be made possible through his or her legal or
natural guardian (Generally it would be a father and, in his absence, mother or the absence of
both, a person who is appointed by the court to make decisions in regard of the affairs of the
minor).10 It is also noteworthy that the permission of the court shall be required for certain
transactions only for example the disposal of property, i.e. mortgage, transfer of property, gift,
exchange, et al. of the whole or any part of any immovable property.

8
Mandly Prasad v. Ramcharan Lal (1947) ILR Nag 848.
9
Shagufta Yasmin, Partition under Hindu Law, Aligarh Muslim University 4.
10
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, §6; Narayan LaxmanGilankar v. U.K. Kaushik, (1994) 1 HLR
492 (Bom); Sandhya RajanAntapurkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 2 HLR 277 (Bom).
separation to all the interested parties. Following the above observation, now the question
arises: Whether a minor can be considered as an interested party, the domain of the decision?

Here, in India, it is imperious to note that there is hardly any distinction between the major and
minor coparceners in view of the rights pertaining to the joint family property. Some of the
rights which can be commonplace to all coparceners consist of the Right of joint ownership,
right of joint possession, entertainment and use of joint family assets, right to alienate
undivided share in case of uncommon circumstances, right to question an unjust alienation
effected via the Karta, right to assert partition inter alia.17 A Guardian can be absolutely anyone
who has the power in addition to the corresponding obligation to act in a way which hobbies
the minor and his belongings. These rights are more or less identical to each other (the right of
ownership, the right to possession, the right to alienate, et al.) in the case of major and minor
coparceners.18 So, it is evident that the minor coparcener enjoys a right of partition. Moreover,
the status of a minor coparcener can be evaluated from the two perspectives. As it is well known
that under Hindu Law, a father who is affecting a partition during his lifetime shall be very
well binding on his sons, either major or minor. So not only does the father split the status of
joint family among himself and his sons but also has the competency to hold inter se partition
among his sons. Hence, there can result in two possibilities: Firstly, the father can have
separation of himself along with his minor child from the joint holders of property, and
Secondly, a father is also qualified to sever his minor coparcener from family including him.
Many countries recognize that the father and mother of a minor are responsible for criminal
guardianship. Different types of guardians include testamentary and court-appointed guardians.
Guardianship as a concept is governed according to the provisions of the personal regulations
concerning minors. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 stipulates the autonomy
of guardians to manage minors’ property. It is regulated by various non-public laws, namely
Hindu laws and Muslim laws. In the overlap with Hindu regulations, researchers try to identify
and analyze the standing of minors as partners. There is also an extensive reference to the
alienation and shared use of judicial procedures in other places. In the part of Islamic law, the
researchers mentioned that parents have the right to alienate and share the property of minors.

17
id.
18
Diwan, supra note, at 437.
property.31 In the case of Subramanyam v. Subba Rao,32 the court ruled that a property sales
contract concluded by a guardian on behalf of a minor can bind the minor’s performance, even
in subsequent decisions, if the circumstances change when the decision is adopted. Great
changes have been made though, which has harmed the interests of minors.33 From the very
beginning, alienation has occurred in situations concerning trading families. The sale is for
inheritance or certain legal needs. In the case of trading families, alienation effected to
commence a new business by the manager of the family is generally not binding on the minors
except in situations wherein the alienation is made for the estate’s benefit or owing to certain
legal necessity. It is for the court to finally determine whether such alienation was made for the
estate’s benefit or legal necessity and if any prudent manager would have taken such a decision
in the interest of the HUF property.34 It is also a well-settled principle that a minor cannot be
prevented from being a transferee of any property.
If the sales contract has been beneficial to the minor and the full amount of the consideration
has been paid, he can file a claim for the ownership of the specified assets.35 Regarding the
transfer of the minor’s immovable property; this can only be done in an emergency or for the
benefit of the court. The courts usually give the terms "necessity" and "interest" broader
meanings.36If the transfer is effected without first obtaining judicial approval, an objection may
be filed at the request of the minor.37 In addition, no guardian can bind a minor through any
personal agreement or contract.38 Although by his warrant, the guardian may impose financial
liability to the minor’s property, he shall not impose other responsibilities. Minors do not bear
any personal responsibility. When the guardian incurs debts to supply necessities, the minor’s
property can be used to repay such debts.39 Article 33 also allows guardians to seek advice,
opinions, or instructions from the court on specific issues related to business management,
Inheritance of minors.40 The legal status of a guardian is fiduciary. He can be made personally
liable for breach of trust. He has no right to take adverse possession of the minor’s property

31
Nagpal, supra Note 30, at 610.
32
Subramanyam v. Subba Rao, AIR 1948 PC 95.
33
Vedakattu Suryaprakasam v. Ake Gangaraju, ILR 1955 AP 311.
34
AngneyLal Narayan Das v. AngneyLalMunniLal, AIR 1951 All 400.
35
Ulfat Rai v. Gauri Shankar, (1911) 33 All 657; MunniKunwar v. Madon Gopal, (1916) 38 All 62.
36
supra note 1.
37
Iruppakutty v. Cherukutty, AIR 1972 Ker 71.
38
Section 8(1), Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
39
supra note 1.
40
Section 33, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; Diwan, supra Note 3, at 293
because the movable property is susceptible to wear and tear and "maintaining the price is
much easier than the thing itself."47 The sale of the movable property doesn’t require
clarification. The guardian appointed by the court must treat the personal property of minors
with care as they treat minors. Regarding real estate, unless it is possible to "double the value,
or when it is necessary to help minors, or when there are debts and wills, and other media", real
estate cannot be sold. Or when the cost of real estate exceeds income or the property
deteriorates". The guardian appointed by the court cannot sell or mortgage the property of a
minor without the prior approval of the court.
Conclusion
Regarding guardianship of assets, there's no unique uniform regulation in India as of now.
Personal legal guidelines of people belonging to distinctive religions are applicable. Among
Hindus, the provisions of the HMGA are applicable. In the case of a Hindu United Family, a
minor coparcener acquires a percentage in the joint family assets as quickly as he takes birth.
He has a right to call for partition via his next friend whilst the identical is required to guard
his interests. He also can act as the Karta of the own circle of relatives if all the coparceners
consent to the same or whilst the father or the eldest member isn't always available. There isn't
any Hindu textual content or rule that prohibits a minor from assuming the function of the
Karta. Alienation of assets is allowed as long as its consequences in a few gains to the minor
and is carried out in a bona fide way via way of means of the guardian. In Muslim laws, the
mother can not be certified as a guardian of the minor’s assets. Any alienation of assets may
be justified on grounds of want and necessity. Muslim regulation additionally distinguishes
between the alienation of movable assets and the alienation of immovable assets. Alienation of
immovable assets is feasible simplest ensure exceptional situations. Moreover, no guardian can
input right into an agreement for the purchase of a few immovable assets on behalf of the minor.
If it is observed that the disposal of the assets via way of means of the legal guardian came
about in a wrong way, the same may be set apart at the choice of the minor on reaching the age
of majority.

47
Dr. Paras Diwan,2 LAW OF ADOPTION, MINORITY, GUARDIANSHIP AND CUSTODY 590 (1989)