The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of the presence of a male co-parcener in the family for certain actions by the natural guardian, and the applicability of permission requirements under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act in the absence of a male member in the family.

( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 3/1975 on the file of the Civil Judge, Belgaum wherein the suit is filed by one Mangala daughter of Virupax Deshpande seeking for partition of 1/4 share in the suit schedule properties, she having succeeded to the estate of her late father Virupax Deshpande who died intestate leaving behind wife Smt. Jayabai and three daughters inclusive of the plaintiff was dismissed. The Geneological tree of the family of Virupax Deshpande being- few facts to briefly state are:

( 2 ) DURING the lifetime of Virupax Deshpande, the schedule properties were joint Hindu family properties at the hands of Virupax Deshpande. Virupax Deshpande dies on 30-4-1962 intestate leaving wife and daughters as mentioned in Geneological tree as his legal representatives and at the time of his death plaintiff and second and third defendants were minors and first defendant was acting as natural guardian of her minor daughters and also was managing the suit schedule properties. The first defendant wife of Virupax Deshpande and mother of plaintiff and second and third defendants sold away all the family properties and the plaintiff after attaining majority has challenged the alienations effected by her mother the first defendant and has pleaded that alienations as not binding on her in view of the fact that her mother either as natural guardian or as Manager had no legal competency to effect alienation of the schedule family properties so as to bind her 1/4 share in the properties in question. The plaintiff has arryaed her mother and two sisters as Defendants 1 to 3 and other alienees as defendants 4 to 46 and since some of the family lands were proposed to be acquired, the 47th defendant was made party.

( 3 ) SUM and substance of plaintiffs pleading being- (1) That alienation effected by plaintiffs mother during her minority as being not binding to the extent of her share and her natural guardian mother had no legal capacity to alienate minors properties without the requisite sanction under the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and as such sales effected by her mother as not binding on minors' shares and in consequence thereon plaintiff being entitled to partition of her share in suit schedule properties A to D. (2) That there was no family necessity to effect sales and further her mother could not act as Manager of Joint Hindu Family after the death of Virupax Deshpande, as there was no male member in the family. The third defendant has supported plaintiffs cause and has paid the requisite court-fee towards her 1/4 share. Defendants 1, 2, 6, 10 to 13, 17, 18, 20, 22, 26, 37 to 39 have been placed ex parte. Defendants 19 and 36 are said to be same persons. Suit is dismissed as against Defendants 19, 21, 23, 36, 40 and 46. Defendants 5, 7,8,14,15,16,24 to 25,27,28,29,30 to 35,41, to 45 and 47 are represented by counsel. Plaintiff has settled suit claim with Defendants 4 and 5, 30 to 35. Plaintiff has also settled suit claim with fourth and fifth defendants. Written statements have been filed by Defendants 3, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 24, 25, 29 and 47.

( 4 ) THE sum and substance of the defence of contesting defendants are: (1) That First defendant was in financial difficulties and she was compelled to effect sales not only for legal necessity but for the benefit of minor daughters. (2) That alienees as being bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration. (3) Improvements have been effected (4) Suit being barred by period of limitation (5) Suit as being not maintainable in the absence of declaration for cancellation of sales effected by first defendant. (6) That suit schedule properties as being the absolute properties of first defendant as extracts in the Revenue Registers disclose her name. (7) That first defendant as natural guardian and Manager of Joint Hindu Family for necessity has sold the family properties and as such no permission being necessary under