A sale deed executed by a natural guardian of an undivided share in the property, where the share of the natural guardian herself was also sold, is valid under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, without the need for permission from the District Judge, indicating the natural guardian's bona fide actions for the benefit of the entire undivided family.

Asim Kumar Ray, J.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 27th March, 1989 and 3rd April, 1989 respectively passed by learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 488 of 1987 reversing the judgment and decree dated 16th March, 1987 and 28th March, 1987 respectively passed in Title Suit No. 373 of 1981 by learned Munsif, 6th Court, Alipore this appeal has been preferred.

2. The plaintiff's case before the lower Court was that he purchased the suit property from one Nirmala Bala Deuti by a registered deed dated 9th February, 1970 and became the owner of the same. Nirmala Bala Deuti, got that property by way of purchase from Smt. Kadambini Nath by a registered sale deed dated 23rd May, 1951. Plaintiff claimed that he got possession of the suit property after purchase. His further case was that Smt. Nirmala Bala Deuti constructed a two roomed house in the northern portion of the land purchased by him which she let out to one Satish Dasgupta on a monthly rental of L 24 as the plaintiff was in Government service when he purchased the suit property, and as his job was transferable, he appointed the defendant as a caretaker of property described in 'A' schedule to the plaint. He also allowed the defendant to reside in the 'B' schedule property as a licensee by constructing a hut. It was agreed between them that whenever necessary the defendant would vacate the 'B' schedule property on proper notice. The plaintiff was in need of the suit property for his use and occupation, he asked the defendant to vacate the 'B' schedule property but in vain. So he instituted the suit.

3. Defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement denying and disputing all the material averments set forth in the plaint and contended, inter alia, that the plaintiff never got possession of the suit property. He categorically denied that he was a licensee in respect of the 'B' schedule property under the plaintiff. His positive case was that he is residing in the suit property since his birth and that the suit property belonged to his father. He and his other co-sharers inherited the same on the death of his father. His further case was that the sale deed executed in favour of Kadambini Nath and Nirmala Deuti had no value in the eye of law as they did not get possession of the suit property. According to him, the record of right relating to the suit property would bear testimony to his contention in this regard. He categorically denied that Nirmala Bala Deuti ever constructed any structure on the suit property. He let out his ancestral room to Satish Dasgupta and realised rent from him. He constructed a hut and has been residing there. He claimed ownership of the suit property.

4. Learned Munsif passed the judgment and decree with a finding that plaintiff failed to substantiate his case with a specific finding that sale deed by which the plaintiff claimed title and possession of the suit property was nothing but a paper transaction. The learned Munsif thus dismissed the suit.

5. The plaintiff being appellant preferred title appeal No. 488 of 1987 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif. The first appellate Court, learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore passed the judgment and decree under challenge in the second appeal by reversing the judgment and decree of learned Munsif. Taking the following specific grounds amongst other appeal was filed:

I. For that the plaintiff failed to prove by producing documentary evidence that Sishubala, the mother of the Defendant sold the share of the defendant during his minority after obtaining the permission from the learned District Judge concerned.

II. For that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the legal effect of transfer of minors' property without the permission of the learned District Judge and the continuance of possession by the concerned minor in the land so transferred having the effect of repudia