A transaction entered into by a natural guardian on behalf of a minor is not void ab initio; it can be avoided by the minor if he (minor) can establish that the guardian had exceeded his authority, i.e. by establishing that the transaction was not one for legal necessity, nor for the minors benefit.

CHITALE J. – This is an aoppeal by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, against them for Rs. 10,500 with interest and costs.

2. The facts admitted before us are as follows:

One Sampat Ganpat Shinde was the father of plaintiff No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 11, and husband of plaintiff Nos. 4 and 12. One Daulat Shimpi obtained two decrees against Sampat one of them was a mortgage decree for Rs. 10,000 (Exh. 45) and the other one was a money decree for Rs. 7,000 (Exh. 46). Sampat agreed not to dispose of his properties until the two decrees was satisfied. On July 12, 1949 Sampat sold survey Nos. 74 and 84/1 at Kekatnimbhore to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 minor by their natural father defendant No. 3. The sale-deed is at Exh. 39. The consideration for the sale-deed was Rs. 24,912, which was made up by the amounts due under the said two decrees and some other consideration. After purchase defendants Nos. 1 and 2 paid the amount due under the mortgage-decree, but they did not pay the amount due under the money decree (Exh. 46) mentioned above. Daulat Shimpi, therefore, filed execution proceedings - Darkhast No. 48 of 1949 - to execute the money decree mentioned above. He sought execution by sale of survey No. 90 measuring 11 acres and 36 gunthas. The amount sought to be recovered was Rs.8,815. On June 27, 1959 Sampat died and the present plaintiffs are his heirs. The, plaintiffs in order to satisfy the money-decree by compromise sold 8 acres and 36 gunthas out of survey No. 90 and thus fully satisfied the said money-decree. Necessary sanction by the Court for this sale was obtained. The order in that respect is at Exh. 74. The sale-deed was executed on November 21, 1961, which is at Exh. 49, and on. November 27, 1961 the Darkhast was disposed of showing the said money-decree as fully satisfied. We may mention here that defendant No.4 is a Subsequent transferee in respect of survey No. 74 from defendants Nos. I aDd 2, minors by their guardian their natural father-defendant No.3. Defendant No.4-is defendant No. 3s wifes sister. On January 23, 1962 the plaintiffs filed the present suit to recover Rs. 10,500 with future interest at 6 per cent. per annum and costs from the defendants; they prayed for a charge on the lands survey Nos. 74 and 84/1 at Kekatnimbhore. The substance of the allegations in the plaint is that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 failed to satisfy the money-decree. Exh. 46, although they agreed to do so under the terms of !he sale-deed. Exh. 39. The plaintiffs, therefore, had to spend Rs 10,500, which they ~dc to recover by the present suit. The plaintiffs allege in the plaint that the trans. action of purchase of the land by Exh. 39 was for the benefit of the family of the defendant, the family actually received benefit thereof and that is why defendant No.3 who was the manager of the family is also liable defendant No. 3, as stated above, Was joined as the subsequent transfer.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds. In view of the arguments advanced by Mr. Shrikhande on behalf of the appellants-defendants Nos. 1 to 3 the only material defences for the purpose of this appeal is that the sale· deed, Exh. 39, imposes personal liability on the minor vendees defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the natural guardian of these minors had no legal right to impose such liability, hence the plaintiffs have no legal right to recover the Joss sustained by them on account of the failure to discharge such a liability imposed on the minors. Defendant No. 3 is in no case liable because he is not a party to the sale-deed, he merely acted as the guardian of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In any case, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to recover Rs.10,500, at best they would be entitled to Rs. 7,281 the amount shown to be due under the said money-decree in the sale-deed, Exh. 39.

4. We may mention here that the point, viz. the sale-deed. Exh. 39, imposes personal liability on the minor