The court observed, "…it is crystal clear that when the property inherited and owned by the plaintiff which is not a Hindu Joint Family property or interest in the joint Hindu Family and when father was not shown to be not taking care of the minor, mother is not natural guardian. She as a de facto guardian has no right to alienate the property of her minor son."

The court was hearing a petition filed by the boy through his father, challenging as void and illegal the sale of his property in the year 1989, by his mother Kushavartabai Paul. The defendant, Shivaji Paul to whom the property was sold opposed the plea claiming that it was sold for legal necessity and for the benefit of the minor.

The Trial Court had allowed the minor's petition, ruling that when the plaintiff's father was alive, his mother was not a natural guardian and was not entitled to execute the sale deed on behalf of the minor. It also held that there was no legal necessity for the sale. This was, however, set aside by the first appellate court; its order was now under challenge by way of second appeal.

It further held the suit to be maintainable, opining that the minor did not need to wait till attaining majority for approaching the court, as such condition can be let go of when the sale is void and there was threat of dispossession or there was actual dispossession.

The court then allowed the petition, while explaining that the issue of lis pendens would not come into picture as the mother did not have any right to transfer the property in the first place.