The main legal point established in the judgment is that a sale of a minor's property by a guardian without obtaining the permission of the Court is voidable under Section 30 of Act VIII of 1890, and the right to sue does not accrue before the plaintiff is born, as per Article 120 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT

Ghose, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the reversionary heirs of one Asradhi Das for a declaration that a certain sale of the property left by him is not binding on the estate after the death of Jagat Priya the daughter of Asradhi. The relevant facts are these: Asradhi died in 1888 leaving four daughters surviving him. Two of them Saroda and Parbati were married during his lifetime. The maiden daughters Bama and Jagat Priya who were infants inherited their father's properties under the Hindu Law. Asradhi's mother Sarumala was appointed guardian of the infants under Act XL of 1858 in November 1888. Sometime after that Bama died unmarried. Jagat Priya then became the sole owner having a Hindu woman's estate in her father's properties. On 24th April, 1891, Sarumala, the guardian, sold the lands in dispute to the defendant without obtaining the permission of the Court as required by the law. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of the two other daughters of Asradhi and plaintiff No. 3 is the son of Jagat Priya. Plaintiff No. 1 was born in 1896 and the other two plaintiffs were born in 1902. There is no question that they are the expectant reversioners entitled to succeed to the estate after the death of Jagat Priya. Jagat Priya did not question the sale by her guardian at any time, and any right she might have, has-been barred by limitation long ago.

2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but on appeal by the plaintiffs the District Judge has reversed the decision and made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Judge held agreeing with the trial Court, that necessity for the sale-was established, but that the sale was absolutely void under the provisions of Act XL of 1858, as made without the permission of the Court. He seems to have also held that the suit was governed by Article 125 of the Limitation Act and it was not barred. The defendant appeals and three points have been raised on his behalf : (1) the alienation having been for legal necessity, it conferred a complete title on the defendant; (2) The sale was not void but only voidable, and Jagat Priya not having avoided it, plaintiffs cannot do so; (3) The suit being governed by Article 125 of the Limitation Act is barred, as it was not brought within 12 years of the date of alienation as provided for in that article.

3. We do not think that the first ground is sustainable. The guardian was appointed under the statute and her powers of dealing with the property of the infant must be regulated by the provisions of the Statute It is not open to any person dealing with such a guardian to support an unauthorised : sale of a minor's property by calling in aid the personal law of the minor. The judgment of the learned Judge cannot be assailed on that ground. We have next to sea whether the sale was void or voidable. It was effected subsequent to-the date when the Guardians and Wards Act came into operation, which was OR the 1st of July, 1890. The sale would be voidable only u/s 30 of that Act. It is, however, contended by the learned Vakil for the respondent that it was absolutely void. His argument is this: It was held in a number of cases in this Court that an unauthorised sale by a guardian appointed under Act XL of 1858 was void. Although that Act was repealed by Act VIII of 1890, Section 2, Sub-section 2 of the later Act provides that all obligations imposed under the repealed Act shall be deemed to have boon imposed under the Act of 1890. An unauthorised sale by a guardian appointed under Act XL of 1858 would therefore be void even if made after the repeal of that Act. This contention is based on an obvious fallacy. The obligation of the guardian to obtain permission of the Court has not been altered by Act VIII of 1890. Section 30 of the Act has enacted what would be the effect of a disposal of the property of the minor without the permission of the Court as regards the rights of the transferee and rights acquired after that Act came