( 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