( 1 ) JUDGEMENT :- Defendants 2 and 3 are the appellants. The Ist respondent, after becoming major, the 2nd respondent being minor represented by his brother the Ist respondent, laid the suit but subsequently he was declared as major by order dt. June 29, 1977 in I. A. No. 392 of 1977. The suit was for possession of plaint A and B schedule properties and to eject the 1st defendant from plaint A Schedule property and the appellants from plaint B Schedule property consisting of one acre. The trial Court granted decree, as against it, the appellants have filed this appeal.

( 2 ) THE admitted case is, that one Bathina Krishna Murthy, the 7th defendant is their father and Bathina Nandeeswaramma the 4th defendant is mother. The father executed a gift deed, Ex. A-3 dt. Feb. 21, 1956, gifting over the plaint schedule property and other properties in favour of the respondent, appointing their mother as guardian. Subsequently, the mother executed on behalf of the respondents, the contract of sale dated February 9, 1964 under Ex. B-7 alienating the B Schedule property, in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the appellants for a valuable consideration of Rs. 2,800/- and received Rs. 300/- as advance and inducted the appellants predecessor-in-title, in possession. Thus, under the contract of sale, the appellants predecessor-in-title and subsequently the appellants continued to be in possession of B schedule property. They have also improved the land. The appellants are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

( 3 ) THE respondents laid the suit on the ground that the mother was not a legal guardian since their father Krishnamurthy is alive. The property is a joint family property. She is not a manager, there is no legal necessity and accordingly she cannot alienate the property. No permission of the Court to alienate the property was obtained. The sale is not for the benefit of the estate of the minors. Thereby she has no manner of right to alienate the property. The appellants are trespassers. Accordingly, the sale is invalid and it is not binding on them.

( 4 ) THE Court below framed as many as eight issues and three additional issues. As regards the point in issue in this appeal it was held that the gift deed dt. Feb. 21, 1986 is invalid since the father is not competent to alienate any particular item of joint family property. It is further held that the sale is void as the mother is not competent to alienate the property it is not open to the appellants to plea that the sale is a bona fide one without notice of defect of title. Therefore, they cannot claim any equities. Thus the sale is not binding on the respondents. The suit has been decreed for possession and ejectment.

( 5 ) SRI Sadasiva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Court below has committed error in declaring that the sale is invalid. The father has relinquished his right to be a guardian by executing the settlement deed and appointing their mother a guardian to represent their estate and subsequently the mother has assumed as a guardian of the minors, she entered into a contract of sale with the appellants predecessor-in-title. Admittedly there is a specific recital in Ex. B-7 that the sale was made for the benefit of the estate of the respondents to purchase lands elsewhere. The appellants predecessor-in-title denied the plea that it is not a bona fide contract of sale for the benefit of the estate of the minors. Therefore, the Court below grievously erred in decreeing the suit. Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents resisted on three-pronged attack. It is contended that the father being a legal guardian no one other than was (sic) appointed by Court has got any right to represent the estate of the minors. It is nextly contended, that admittedly the properties are the joint family properties, father as karta or the eldest son alone are competent to act as karta, and therefore, the mo