Natural guardian authority controls statutory disclosure by a Hindu minor; mother's signature and later ratification were ineffective.

A Hindu minor's declaration of voluntary disclosure under section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965 was held invalid when signed by the mother while the father was alive and capable of acting. The declaration was treated as analogous to an income-tax return and, because it affected the minor's property, only the father as natural guardian could validly act on the minor's behalf. The mother had no authority to sign in his presence, and later ratification by the father could not cure the defect after the statutory time-limit had expired. The challenge to rejection of the declarations therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a declaration of voluntary disclosure of income under section 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, on behalf of a Hindu minor could validly be signed by the mother in the presence of the father, and whether subsequent ratification by the father could cure the defect.

Analysis: The declaration under section 24 was treated as analogous to a return of income under sections 139 and 140 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in the case of a minor it had to be signed by a person competent to act on the minor's behalf. Under sections 5, 6, 8 and 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the father is the natural guardian of a Hindu minor and alone is competent to act for the minor in matters relating to the minor's property while he is alive and capable of acting. The mother, though a natural guardian after the father, could not act in his presence, and as a de facto guardian she had no authority to deal with the minor's property. Filing the declaration exposed the minor's income to tax and therefore amounted to dealing with the minor's property. The plea of ratification under section 196 of the Contract Act failed because the declaration had to be valid within the statutory time-limit under section 24, and an invalid declaration could not be validated after the Commissioner's jurisdictional period had expired. The reliance on Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure was inapposite because its provisions do not govern proceedings under the Income-tax Act.

Conclusion: The declaration signed by the mother was invalid, and the father's later ratification did not cure the defect; the mother was not competent to sign on behalf of the minor.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed, and the challenge to the rejection of the declarations was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Hindu minor has a living and capable father, only the father as natural guardian can validly act on the minor's behalf in filing a statutory declaration affecting the minor's property, and an unauthorized declaration cannot be cured by subsequent ratification beyond the statutory time-limit.

---