Legal Advice on Pakistani Law on Permission to Sell A Minor’s Property Under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890

1. Citation: 2023 YLR 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
   • Parties: Appellant – Iftikhar Ali; Opponent – Riaz-ul-Haq alias Riaz Ahmed
   • Summary: The case underscores that the sale of minors’ immovable property is strictly regulated under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The father, although the natural guardian, cannot sell the minors’ property unless appointed by the court under Section 29 of the Act. The agreement to sell hinted at obtaining court permission for the sale, but neither the father nor the respondents took steps to obtain a guardianship certificate, rendering the purported sale invalid.
2. Citation: 2021 CLC 934 ISLAMABAD
   • Parties: Appellant – Sobia Jabeen; Opponent – Judge Guardian Court (East), Islamabad
   • Summary: The case revolves around jurisdictional competence concerning the sale of a minor’s property. It reiterates that the court within whose jurisdiction the property is situated is competent to grant permission for sale, underlining the procedural adherence to Section 16 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for ensuring minors’ property protection.
3. Citation: 2010 CLC 1078 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
   • Parties: Appellant – Muhammad Rasool Khan; Opponent – Mst. Masroon Bibi
   • Summary: This case highlights the procedural correctness of appointing a guardian and seeking court permission for selling minors’ property. The mother, appointed as the guardian, secured court permission for the sale to meet minors’ expenditure needs, which was later challenged but upheld by the appellate court, underscoring the necessity and validity of the guardianship certificate and court’s permission in protecting minors’ interests.
4. Citation: 2006 PLD 571 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
   • Parties: Appellant – Muhammad Ramzan; Opponent – Saif Nadeem Electro (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chairman
   • Summary: This case elucidates a nuanced scenario where an agreement to sell by a de facto guardian (mother) was validated as it was in the minor’s interest, and the required court permission was obtained subsequently. It emphasizes the conditional legality of such agreements subject to court permissions, ensuring minors’ interests are safeguarded.
5. Citation: 2003 SCMR 1794 SUPREME-COURT
   • Parties: Appellant – Ghulam Nabi; Opponent – Faisal Naveed
   • Summary: The case underscores the obligatory requirement for a court-appointed guardian to seek court permission before selling a minor’s property. The father’s sale of property without such permission was deemed voidable, reaffirming the procedural safeguards under Sections 29 and 30 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
6. Citation: 2003 CLC 1058 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
   • Parties: Appellant – Muhammad Riaz; Opponent – Mumtaz Ali
   • Summary: In this case, the father, after being appointed as a guardian, obtained court permission to sell the minors’ property as per the prior agreement. The court upheld the legality of the transaction, reinforcing the essential role of court permissions in transactions involving minors’ properties.
7. Citation: 1991 MLD 353 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
   • Parties: Appellant – Nasrullah Khan Marri; Opponent – Federal Land Commission
   • Summary: The case deals with the scrutiny of a minor’s property sale transaction by the minor’s mother, appointed as a legal guardian, without court permission. It suggests that in the absence of a court order authorizing the sale, the functionaries of the Land Commission could assess the legality and propriety of such transactions under Rule 11(2) of the Sindh Land Reforms Rules, 1977.

These summaries encapsulate the key aspects of each case, reflecting the paramountcy of procedural adherence to the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in safeguarding the interests of minors in property transactions.

****Law on Permission to Sell a Minor’s property****

Updated Article November 2023

The issue of property sales involving minors, as governed by the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, has been addressed in various rulings by the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. These cases present a complex interplay of legal principles concerning the guardianship of minors and the legal validity of transactions involving their property. I will provide a comprehensive legal note based on the cases you’ve cited, focusing on the key principles and takeaways.

In the 2023 YLR 854 case (Iftikhar Ali vs. Riaz-ul-Haq), the Lahore High Court addressed the scope of a legal guardian’s authority to sell a minor’s property. The court emphasized that under Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, only certain individuals, such as the father or a court-appointed guardian, are legally entitled to be guardians of a minor’s property. The decision highlighted that even a father, as a natural guardian, must seek court approval before selling a minor’s property, to ensure that the sale benefits the minor. This reinforces the principle that the welfare of the minor is paramount in any transaction involving their property.

The 2022 YLR 2293 case (Afzal Ahmad Buttar vs. Muhammad Yousaf) further solidified this principle. Here, the Lahore High Court held that any agreement to sell a minor’s property, made without prior permission from the Guardian Court, is void ab initio and creates no legal rights or liabilities. This ruling serves as a strict reminder that adherence to the procedural safeguards of the Guardians and Wards Act is critical to the validity of such transactions.

Similarly, the 2017 PLD 606 Karachi High Court ruling (Ali Gohar Chandio vs. Mst. Hawa) addressed the conveyance of a minor’s property by a de facto guardian. The court declared that a conveyance by a de facto guardian, such as a mother without court permission, is void and not binding on the minor. This case underscores the legal incapacity of de facto guardians to act on behalf of minors in property transactions without judicial sanction.

The 2016 MLD 337 Lahore High Court ruling (Muhammad Faazal vs. Abdul Hameed Mughal) reiterated that a sale agreement executed by a minor’s mother, who is not a duly appointed or court-authorized guardian, is void ab initio. This decision stresses the legal distinction between ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ transactions, emphasizing that transactions involving minors’ property, conducted without necessary legal authority, are inherently void.

In the 2011 MLD 1393 case (Ghulam Muhammad vs. Muhammad Jehangir), the Lahore High Court set aside a compromise decree involving minors’ property, which was signed by their mother without court permission. This ruling reinforces the necessity of obtaining court permission before entering into any property transaction on behalf of a minor.

Finally, the 2006 PLD 571 Lahore High Court case (Muhammad Ramzan vs. Saif Nadeem Electro Pvt. Ltd.) and the 2004 SCMR 1502 Supreme Court case (Rehman vs. Yara) highlight that any transaction involving a minor’s property requires explicit court approval to be valid. These cases demonstrate the courts’ vigilant approach in ensuring the protection of minors’ property rights.

Key Takeaways:

• Transactions involving a minor’s property require explicit court approval under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
• The welfare of the minor is paramount in all such transactions.
• Agreements to sell a minor’s property by individuals other than a court-appointed guardian, without court permission, are void ab initio.
• De facto guardians, like mothers, do not have the legal capacity to convey a minor’s property without court authorization.
• The courts emphasize strict adherence to procedural safeguards to protect minors’ property rights.

The key aspects of these rulings under section 29 revolve around the necessity of obtaining permission from the Guardian Court prior to the sale of a minor’s property, the role of natural guardians, and the legal implications of agreements made without such permission.

• Guardian Court’s Permission: Essential for Validity – In most cases, it is evident that the sale of property owned by a minor without prior permission from the Guardian Court is either void or voidable. This is clearly articulated in cases like 2003 SCMR 1794, where the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the transfer of a minor’s property by a guardian without the court’s permission was voidable. Similarly, in 1987 MLD 2502, it was held that a guardian’s subsequent permission to sell could not validate a previous sale made without such permission.
• Role of Natural Guardians: The role of natural guardians, typically the parents of the minor, is another focal point. In some cases, the father, as a natural guardian, was involved in the sale of the minor’s property. However, as seen in cases like 2003 CLC 1058, even if the natural guardian (father) of the minors is involved in the sale, it is imperative to obtain a certificate from the Court to alienate the minor’s property legally.
• Legal Implications of Agreements Made Without Permission: A recurrent theme is the legal status of agreements made without obtaining the necessary permission from the Guardian Court. For instance, in the 1997 CLC 1765 case, it was held that even if an agreement to sell a minor’s property was entered into, such an agreement could not be specifically enforced without the required permission under Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
• Exceptions and Specific Circumstances: Some cases also discuss exceptions or specific circumstances where the sale of a minor’s property could be considered. For example, in the 1984 CLC 1803 case, it was held that entering into an agreement without obtaining prior permission was not illegal if the agreement expressly provided that the vendors would obtain sale permission from the competent court for the sale of the minors’ shares.

The key takeaway from these rulings is the crucial importance of adhering to the legal procedures outlined in the Guardians and Wards Act, particularly obtaining the necessary permission from the Guardian Court, to ensure the validity of transactions involving a minor’s property. These cases underscore the protective measures in place to safeguard the interests and property rights of minors, highlighting the role of guardians and the judiciary in this process.

Cases on Section 30 Guardians and Wards Act 1890 

The cases 2017 PLD 606 and 2003 SCMR 1794, both address crucial aspects of the sale of a minor’s property under the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890. These cases offer valuable insights into the legal intricacies involved in such transactions.

2017 PLD 606 – Karachi High Court

• • Void Transactions Involving Minors: This case underscores that any conveyance of immovable property by a de facto guardian of a Muslim minor is void and not binding on the minor. Here, the sale of property shares of two minor daughters without the court’s permission was questioned. The court emphasized that under Islamic law, a mother, as a de facto guardian, has no power to validly convey a minor’s property.
  • Conveyance by Multiple Parties Including Minors: An interesting point in this case is the court’s observation regarding conveyances effected by multiple parties, where one or more are minors represented by a de facto guardian. The court held that if such a conveyance is void as it affects the minor, it is void in its entirety. A contract partially void due to the involvement of minors cannot stand for the other executants who are competent to make the conveyance.
  • Legal Status of Agreements Involving Minors: The court highlighted that an agreement made by an individual with infirmity due to lunacy or juvenility is void ab initio and cannot be rectified even after the minor attains the age of majority. This principle reinforces the protective legal framework for minors in property transactions.
• 2003 SCMR 1794 – Supreme Court
  • Requirement of Guardian Court’s Permission: This case reiterates the necessity of obtaining permission from the Guardian Court for the sale of a minor’s property. The father, despite being a natural guardian, was not authorized to sell the minor’s property without such permission. The court held that the transfer of property by a guardian without the court’s permission is voidable.
  • Competency to File Suit on Behalf of Minors: The case also addressed the procedural aspect of who can competently file a suit on behalf of a minor. It was held that the suit filed by the minor through his mother was competent under the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. This point is particularly important in situations where the natural guardian’s actions are in question.

****Law on Permission to Sell a Minor’s property****

Key Takeaways on Law on Permission to Sell a Minor’s Property 

• Guardian Court’s Permission: It is critical for the legal guardian to obtain permission from the Guardian Court before alienating a minor’s property. Any sale or conveyance without this permission is either void or voidable.
• Role of Natural Guardians and De Facto Guardians: The role of natural and de facto guardians in property transactions involving minors is tightly regulated. As seen in these cases, their actions without the necessary legal permissions are often void.
• Void Contracts Involving Minors: Agreements or sales involving minors, especially those made by persons not legally authorized to act on their behalf, are void ab initio. These cannot be rectified later, even after the minor reaches majority.
• Protective Legal Framework for Minors: These cases demonstrate the robust legal framework in place to protect minors’ property rights, emphasizing the importance of legal compliance to safeguard their interests.

These principles and interpretations from the courts are critical in ensuring that the rights and interests of minors in property matters are protected and that guardians adhere to the legal standards set forth in the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890.

You may also like

8 Misconceptions About Pakistani Law on Self-Defence

 Judicial Attitudes to Corporate Governance in Pakistan: A Review of Recent Cases

Legal Advice on Corporate Governance Landscape in Pakistan For Non-Listed Companies (NLCs)