A transfer by a de facto guardian, which is neither for necessity nor for the benefit of the estate of the minor, is not void but only voidable, and may therefore be ratified on the minor attaining majority.

( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal from a decree of the lower appellate court, affirming the decree of a learned Munsif.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF who is the appellant, brought a suit for declaration of his title to and recovery of possession of the southern half portion of c. s. plot No. 712 of Mouza Bilashi. There was an alternative prayer for partition of the said plot No. 712, if the plaintiffs claim for separate possession of the southern half of the plot was uot made out.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFFS case was that defendant No. 1, Hrishikesh Ghose, was the owner of a moiety share of c. s. plot No. 712. During the minority of defendant No. 1, his paternal grandmother and guardian, Haribala Dasi, granted a permanent settlement of the southern half portion of plot No, 712 to one Satish Chandra Ghose, by a patta, dated Chaitra 17, 1349 B. S. (corresponding to March 31, 1943 ). Satish Chandra Ghose remained in possession of the said portion of c. s. plot no, 712 for some time and thereafter, by a conveyance, dated Chaitra 11, 1350 B. S. (corresponding to March 25, 1944), sold the said property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to have remained in possession of the southern half of the c. s. plot No. 712 after having effected a partition or under an amicable arrangement with his other co-sharers. until November 10, 1949, when he was dispossessed by defendants Nes. 3 to 16, who were in collusion with defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Hence the suit by the plaintiff, out of whieh this appeal arises.

( 4 ) THE suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and defendants Nos. 17 to 22, who filed two separate written statements. Their defence in substance was that Haribala Dasi, the paternal grand-mother of minor Hrishikesh Ghose could not settle the property because she was never the guardian of the minor either de jure Or de facto. The mother of Hrishikesh Ghose was said to have been his guardian during his minority. It was further pleaded that there was no legal necessity for granting any permanent settlement to Satish Ghose and the transaction was not for the benefit of the minor. It was also alleged that neither Satish Ghose nor the plaintiff was at all in possession nor had they ever been in possession and that the possession of the disputed property was and had all along been the possession of defendant No. 1, Hrishikesh, and his co-sharers.

( 5 ) IT is not disputed that the defendant No. 1 attained majority considerably beyond three years of the date of the suit.

( 6 ) THE trial court dismissed the claim made by the plaintiff. The trial court was of opinion that Haribala Dasi, the paternal grand-mother of defendant No. 1, Hrishikesh, was no doubt the de facto guardian of the minor, inasmuch as the minor used to live under her care and protection. The patta granted by Haribala, as de facto guardian of defendant No. 1 was however, held to be not justified by any legal necessity of the minor. The settlement, according to the trial Court, did not at all benefit the minor. It was further held by the trial court that the settlement granted to Satish Ghose was not followed by delivery of possession to the purchase and neither Satish Ghose nor the plaintiff at all or at any time possessed the suit land. The possession was found to have remained throughout with the guardian of the minor and the other co-sharers of the minor and defendant No. 1 was, it was held, in possession of his own interest since after he had attained majority. The interest of defendant No. 1, therefore, was not extinguished either under Section 28 nor barred under Article 44 of the Indian Limitation Act, because Satish Ghose and the plaintiff had all along been kept out of possession.

( 7 ) THE plaintiff appealed to the court of appeal below. Before the court of appeal below two points were principally urged, (l ). the settlement by Haribala was justified by legal necessity of the minor, defendant No. 1, and (2) the settlement made to Satish Ghose, even if not justi