A father, as the natural guardian of a Hindu minor son, has the power to sell the minor's estate for the benefit of the estate, and such a sale is voidable by the minor within three years of attaining majority.

( 1 ) THE only point of law in this Second Appeal is how tar a father as the natural guardian of a Hindu minor son has power to sell the minor's estate for the benefit of the estate.

( 2 ) THE point of law arises on the following facts: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of khas possession of the lands in suit and declaration or her title thereto in respect of 10 bighas of land in Taluk Debgram in the district of Jalpaiguri. She filed the suit on the strength of her title by purchase on the basis of a registered deed of sale dated 21st Febuary, 1945 executed by Mahipal Singh Roy, the natural guardian and father of minor Birendra Kanta Roy who was the owner of the lands in suit. The plaintiffs case is that she was in possession since the purchase but was dispossessed by the defendant appellant on or about the middle of Baisakh 1360 B. S. which will be about 10 years ago, i. e. , about April 1933. She then instituted the suit on the 7th April, 1956.

( 3 ) THE defence is that the defendants bought these self-same lands from Birendra Kanta Hoy when he attained majority and the sale on which the defendants relied was also a registered deed dated the 21st December, 1950. When the plaintiff, therefore, filed her suit for recovery of possession and declaration of her title, the defence taken was that the sale-deed on which she as plaintiff was relying was bad because the guardian had no power to sell the lands to her and the sale by the guardian was illegal and bad. The whole question turned in the lower Courts on the legal position of guardians and their right to alienate the minor's property for the benefit of the estate.

( 4 ) THE other relevant facts for the purpose of deciding the question of law may also be stated briefly. It is found as a fact that these lands which were sold to the plaintiff were sandy, barren, useless and did not yield any income or profit. It is also found as a fact by both the Courts below that such barren, unprofitable and useless lands were, sold and the sale proceeds were invested in arable income-yielding and culturable lands. The evidence has proved that such profitable, arable and paddy growing lands had in fact been purchased. The question, therefore, on the concurrent findings of both the Courts below is whether in the present facts the sale by the guardian on the 21st February, 1945 to the plaintiff was good and valid on the ground that it was for the benefit of the estate. Both the Courts held that it was so. On a careful examination of facts and law in this case I have come to the same conclusion and I have no hesitation in upholding the judgment under appeal. I shall state my reasons very briefly.

( 5 ) MR. Bhattacharjee appearing for the appellant has drawn my attention to Mulla's Hindu Law, Twelth Edition, Article 528 at pp. 683 and 684. He has relied on the celebrated decision of the Privy Council in Hunooman Pershad v. Mt. Babooee, 6 Moo Ind App 39-3 at p. 423. Reference is also made by him to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Palaniappa Chetly v. Devasikamony Pandura, 44 Ind App 147 at p, 155: (AIR 1917 PC 33 at p. 37), and also to the observations in a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Chandra v. Ratan Ram Pal, 20 Cal WN 645 at p. 647: (AIR 1916 Cal 840 at p, 842 ). Mr. Bhattaeherjee's main contention is that mere increase in the immediate income of the minor or of his estate docs not necessarily justify the inference that the particular transaction was for the benefit of the estate within the meaning of this Article of Hindu Law. Secondly he also submits that speculative development of the estate of a minor cannot come within the doctrine of benefit of the estate. These two submissions are sound and are unexceptionable.

( 6 ) BUT the whole question is--Was the present sale such a speculative venture or was it merely for the increase of income. The facts show that the sale does not come within the mischief of either of these two p