The main legal point established in the judgment is that the guardian's powers of alienation of the ward's properties must be justified by pressing necessity and to the manifest advantage of the minors, and the court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Travancore Debt Relief Act.

1. These appeals are directed against the decrees in two suits, O.S. Nos. 125/1120 and 638/1120, which were jointly tried and disposed of by the lower court. The substantial questions involved in both the suits are the same.

2. The two suits arose under the following circumstances:- Plaintiffs 1 to 5 in O.S. No. 125 of 1120 are the children of the 2nd defendant who had a sister by name Parukutty Amma. The 6th defendant is the daughter of this Parukutty Amma who is no more. The 2nd defendant and the deceased Parukutty Amma were both the wives of one Raman Pillai who had obtained the plaint properties to his share as per the partition deed entered into by himself and the other members of his tarwad in the year 1100. Soon after that partition deed, he gifted all these properties in favour of his two wives, under Ext. III dated 10.10.1100. A few years later Parukutty Amma, the second donee under Ext. III, reconveyed all the rights she had obtained under Ext. III, to Raman Pillai and the present 1st plaintiff, by executing the settlement deed Ext. D dated 6.4.1106 in their favour. Raman Pillai died in the year 1115 and his rights in the properties covered by Ext. D devolved on his heirs. On 12.3.1117 the 2nd defendant in her own right and as guardian of these plaintiffs executed the sale deed Ext. I in respect of the plaint properties, in favour of the 1st defendant and his deceased brother. The consideration for the sale was stated to be the amount of them was born on the date of the gift deed. Apart from this aspect of the matter, it is clear from the language of the gift deed Ext. III that the demise made under it was absolute in favour of the two donees, who were the 2nd defendant and her sister Parukutty Amma. It follows, therefore, that each of them became entitled to a half share in the properties covered by the gift deed. The half share of Parukutty Amma was conveyed by her to the donor Raman Pillai and his son the present Ist plaintiff, under Ext. D dated 6.4.1106. Thus Raman Pillai and the 1st plaintiff each became entitled to 1/4 share in the properties. The 2nd defendant continued to be owner of the half share she had obtained under Ext. III. On the death of Raman Pillai, his 1/4 share devolved in equal shares on the 2nd defendant and plaintiffs 1 to 6 as his legal representatives, i.e., each of them became entitled to 1/7 of the 1/4 share which Raman Pillai had. In other words, each of the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant became entitled to 1/28 share in the plaint properties. When the half share which the 2nd defendant already had under the gift deed is added to the 1/28 share which she got as legal representatives of her deceased husband, she became entitled in all to 15/28 share in the properties. Since she was the absolute owner of this 15/28 share, she was perfectly competent to execute the sale deed Ext. I in respect of that share, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to impeach the sale deed in respect of that share. The suit must necessarily fail to the extent of the said 15/28 share which belonged to the 2nd defendant.

7. Coming to the remaining 13/28 share which belonged to these plaintiffs, the 2nd defendant is seen to have functioned as the guardian of these plaintiffs, who were minors on the date of Ext. I, in conveying their share also under the document. The law defining the guardian's powers of alienation of the ward's properties, is firmly settled. When such alienations are impeached by the minors, the alienee has to establish that the alienations were justified by pressing necessity and that the alienations were to the manifest advantage of the minors. No such evidence has been adduced in this case by the contesting defendants. The 1st defendant alone has been examined as a witness on his side, and his evidence does not go to show that there was any pressing necessity to sell away the minors' properties under Ext. I even if his version that the chitty debt mentioned in the document was really