A guardian's power to transfer a minor's property is limited and qualified, and can only be exercised rightly in case of need or for the benefit of the estate. Payment of a time-barred paternal debt is not a legal necessity justifying the sale of a minor's property.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against an appellate decree reversing the decree passed by a learned Munsif.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF's father Dhruba, at one time, was the owner of about 17 1/2 Bighas of land. Dhruba either sold or mortgaged the major portion of his land and at the time of his death in the year 1342 B. S. , was left with about 4 Bighas of cultivable land and a homestead. Dhruba was succeeded by the plaintiff, his infant son. Plaintiff's mother and guardian was an ignorant woman and used to work as a maid servant in the house of the defendant, Haripada, on whom she was said to have implicit faith and confidence.

( 3 ) IT was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant induced his mother and guardian to sell to him land measuring. 6 of an acre, forming the front portion of the residential house of the plaintiff. On the 17th Bhadra, 1344 B. S. the mother of the plaintiff, acting as the natural guardian of the minor plaintiff, sold the aforesaid land to the defendant.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff the conveyance was caused by or at the instance of the defendant by exercising undue influence on the plaintiff's mother and by practising fraud on her. The plaintiff further alleged that the document was without consideration and he was not in the lease benefit ed by the transaction. It was also alleged that there was no legal necessity for the conveyance.

( 5 ) ON the aforesaid allegations the plaintiff instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, inter alia, claiming a declaration that the conveyance, dated the 17th Bhadra, 1344 B. S. , was a fraudulent or an invalid document, executed without consideration and without necessity and as such was void and not binding on the plaintiff. There was a further prayer for recovery of possession of the disputed land by evicting the defendant.

( 6 ) THE defence was a total denial of the al-legation in the plaint, namely, that the conveyance had not been executed with the free consent of the plaintiff's mother. It was also disputed that the plaintiffs mother had no independent advice at the time of the execution of the document. So far as the payment of the consideration money for the sale was concerned, it was alleged that the total consideration was fixed at Rs. 50/- and out of that, a sum of Rs. 18/-, due on a promissory note executed by Dhruba, and a sum of Rs. 24/-, said to have been borrowed by the mother of the plaintiff for maintenance, were deducted and the balance, namely, a sum of Rs. 8/- was paid in cash to the mother of the plaintiff. The defendant denied that there was no legal necessity for the transaction or that the plaintiff did not benefit by the sale.

( 7 ) THE learned Munsif found that Dhruba had actually borrowed a sum of Rs. 18/- from the son of the defendant and further found that the plaintiff's mother, being in straitened circumstances and in need of money, had to borrow a sum of Rs. 24/- from the defendant. In order to repay the debts, the impugned sale became a legal necessity. The portion that was sold was fallow land and the learned Munsif observed that the plaintiff's mother, in her capacity as guardian, had acted prudently in disposing of a fallow and useless plot of land in order to satisfy certain just debts due by the minor.

( 8 ) IN the above view of the matter the learned Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

( 9 ) THE plaintiff appealed. The lower appellate court affirmed the decree passed by the learned Munsif.

( 10 ) MR. Jitendra Kumar Sen Gupta, learned Advocate for the appellant, contended, in the first ptece, that the loan of Rs. 18/- incurred by the plaintiff's father on a promissory note was barred by limitation at the time of the conveyance and the plaintiffs mother, acting as his guardian, was not justified in disposing of the minor's property for repayment of a barred debt. It was contended, in the next place, that the sum of Rs. 24/- was not borrowed by the plaintiffs mother for any o