The guardian's power to alienate the minor's property is limited and qualified and can only be exercised rightly in a case of need or for the benefit of the estate.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal is referred to a Bench by our learned brother, Manohar Pershad, J. , as an important question of law is involved in it, the question being whether it is competent for the legal guardian of a Hindu minor to alienate by sale the minors immoveable property merely for the reason that a good price is fetched by the sale and thus the minor would financially be benefited.

( 2 ) THE facts which led to the filing of the above second appeal are as follows: There are three defendants in the suit who are brothers. Defendants 2 and 3 are minors represented by their mother and guardian, Chinnalu. The property involved in this suit consists of a site with two thatched horses situated in the village of Etikoppaka, Visakhapatnam district. The property was purchased under the registered sale deed, Ex. B. 1 dated 29-3-52 for a sum of Rs. 100. 00 executed by one Nakkina Bayyanna and others, in favour of the three defendants and their mother, Chinnalu so that each of the defendants has got 1/4th share in the property and their mother, Chinnalu has got l/4th share. By an agreement, Ex. A. 1 dated 31-8-55, the 1st defendant and defendants 2 and 3 being minors by their natural guardian, the mother. Chinnalu, agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 700. 00. The mother herself did not execute the agreement in her individual capacity. The plaintiff, who is the appellant in the second appeal, filed O. S. No. 331 of 1955 in the Court of the District Munsif, Yellamanchili, for the specific performance of this agreement. The agreement recited that a sum of Rs. 200. 00was received by the executants and the balance of Rs. 500. 00 was agreed to be paid before the Registrar at the time of the registration of the sale deed. The 1st defendant, who is a major, pleaded that the mother also owns 1/4th share in the suit property and that all of them agreed to sell the properly to one Thota Atchanna for Rs. 730. 00, that they had in fact executed an agreement on 7-9-55 in favour of Atchanna and that subsequently they also executed a registered sale deed on 21-9-55 in his favour and put the properties in his possession. It was also pleaded that the agreement, Ex. A-1 is a fabrication and that the recital that a sum of Rs. 200. 00 was paid under it is false. It was further pleaded that the agreement is not binding on defendants 2 and 3 and that in any event the plaintiff cannot get any relief with regard to the mothers 1/4th share in the properties. The learned District Munsif found that Ex. A. 1 is a genuine document and that the sale deed dated 21-9-55 which was subsequent to the filing of the suit and which is marked as Ex. B. 3 does not bind the plaintiff, as the prior agreement dated 7-9-55 alleged to have been executed by the defendants is a document got up to support Ex. B. 3. The trial Court also found that the amount of Rs. 200. 00was paid as advance under Ex. A. 1 and that the suit is maintainable against defendants 2 and 3 as the agreement is binding on them, because it is for their benefit as the properly which was originally purchased for Rs. 100. 00 is agreed to be sold by the guardian of the minors, who is the mother, for Rs. 700. 00 i. e. , for seven times the original value. In the result, the suit was decreed for 3/4ths of the suit property. Both the plaintiff and the defendants appealed to the Subordinate Judges Court, Visakhapatnam. The learned Subordinate Judge also held that the agreement Ex. A. 1 is true, but not binding on the minors. He also held that as the mother is not a party to the suit and to the agreement, the agreement cannot in any view, be enforced with regard to her 1/4th share. He further held that, since the plaintiff was not prepared to pay the entire amount of consideration, the agreement cannot be enforced even with regard to the 1st defendants 1/4th share, though he was a major at the time of Ex. A. 1. In the result, he allowed the defendants appeal and dismissed the