A minor, whose property had been transferred by her natural guardian, can avoid it without the assistance of the court if the sale is in contravention of S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

1. A short question of law, riddled with difficulties and conflicting precedents, falls for decision is these second appeals. I must express right at the outset my deep appreciation of the thoroughness with which counsel for the respondent, Shri. T. P. Kelu Nambiar, argued the case, of course, doing his duty to the court by bringing to my notice rulings, reported and unreported, speaking for and against his standpoint.

2. A decree for partition was passed in O.S. No. 138 of 1952 whereby the C schedule properties thereto were allotted to the widow and minor daughter of the 2nd defendant who died pending the suit and was represented thereafter by his widow and only daughter. Thereafter, on 12 41957 the mother, i. e. the widow of the deceased 2nd defendant, transferred the property so allotted to the plaintiff, Kannan, acting for hereself and as guardian of her minor daughter. It may be mentioned right away that the mother and daughter were entitled to equal shares in the C schedule property. The minor thereafter married and her husband took a different view of the situation. For, he felt that the assignment was wrongful and injurious to his wife's interests and, ignoring the transfer to the plaintiff, proceeded to execute the partition decree acting as the guardian of his minor wife. The respondent, i.e. the plaintiff, raised the plea that the minor daughter could not execute the decree without setting aside the transfer effected on her behalf and as her guardian by her mother. If the transfer was void or had been avoided validly without the intervention of the court, there was no need to set aside the sale as such by suing in that behalf. But if the transfer had to be get rid of only by a decree setting it aside, the execution petition could not be sustained since the minor had lost her property by Exts. P1 and P2 and could not regain it until a decree had been passed setting them aside. It must be assumed for the purpose of this discussion that the mother when she executed Exts. P1 and P2 on 12 41957 was the natural guardian of the minor. The key question is as to whether a minor, whose property had been transferred by her natural guardian, can avoid it or should get it set aside by a decree even if the sale be in contravention of S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, it being admitted that the parties are Hindus governed by that Act.

3. A manager of a Joint Hindu family alienating family property has only limited powers. So also a Hindu widow vis-a-vis the reversioners to the estate of her husband. A guardian of a minor or a trustee of a temple stands more or less on the same footing. It has been laid down more than a century ago in Hanuman Prasad's case that the power of the manager of an infant-heir to charge an estate, not his own, is, under the Hindu Law, a limited and qualified power. The question in that case was as to the extent of the power of the mother as manager of the estate of her minor son to alienate the estate, but the principles laid down in that case have been held to apply to alienations by the managers of joint families, of religious endowments, of the estates of lunatics and by Hindu widows. Supposing an alienation were made by a person authorised, only under circumstances in their nature variable, to dispose immovable property and transfers such property in excess of his powers, how can such an alienation be got rid of? Can it be done by a unilateral repudiation by the affected party or can it be said that even that is not necessary, the transaction being void or a nullity? Is there force in the other extreme contention that a transaction so entered into is neither void nor can be avoided by the affected party by a unilateral act, but could be got rid of only by a suit to set aside the transaction? The basic decision which throws considerable light on the controversy high-lighted by me now is the one reported in Ramaswami Aiyangar v. Rangachariar (1940(1) MLJ. 32) where Leach, C