IMPORTANT POINT
The natural guardian's alienation of minors' property is valid if made prudently and for the minors' benefit, as per Section 27 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S No.300/1995 of the Munsiff’s Court, Kodungalloor. The plaintiffs are brothers. They challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing their suit.

2. The suit was originally filed against three defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the 1 ^st defendant died, and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional defendants 4 to 11. The suit was filed for declaring that Ext.B2 Sale deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs on behalf of them during their minority with respect to B schedule Item No.1 property having an extent of 55 ¼ cents in favour of the 1 ^st defendant and Ext.B3 Sale deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs on behalf of them during their minority, with respect to Plaint B schedule Item No.2 property having an extent of 6.37 cents in favour of the 2 ^nd defendant, Ext.B4 and B5 documents executed by the 1 ^st and 2 ^nd defendants with respect to those properties in favour of the 3 ^rd defendant are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaint Schedule properties; for consequential relief of setting aside the said documents; for allowing recovery of possession of Plaint B schedule properties from the 3 ^rd defendant on the strength of title with mesne profits. Plaint B Schedule Item Nos 1 and 2 properties are parts of Plaint A schedule property having an extent of 2 acres 15 cents obtained by the plaintiffs represented by their father Antony as their natural guardian as per Ext.A1 Sale deed of the year 1979 during their minority. As per the plaint allegations on the basis of Ext B4 and B5 sale deeds executed by defendants 1 and 2, the plaint B schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of the 3 ^rd defendant; the plaintiffs did not enjoy the consideration of the above sale deeds; the father of the plaintiffs did not obtain sanction from the District court Thrissur for Ext.B2 and B3 alienations.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint Written Statement, and the 3 ^rd defendant filed a separate Written Statement opposing the suit prayers. Defendants 1 to 3 admitted that the plaintiff derived the title of the plaint schedule property as per Ext.A1, that the father of the plaintiff transferred plaint B schedule properties in favour of defendants 1 and 2 as per Ext.B2 and B3 and that the 3 ^rd defendant purchased the Plaint B schedule properties from defendants 1 and 2 as per Ext.B4 and B5 Sale Deeds. According to them, Antony, father of the plaintiffs, transferred plaint B schedule properties in favour of defendants 1 and 2 for and on behalf of the plaintiffs upon valid consideration and in good faith. While executing those Sale deeds, Plaint B schedule properties were barren land without any cultivation and irrigation facilities. The plaintiffs did not obtain any usufructs from it. The father of the plaintiff did not have the financial capability to cultivate the said properties. Hence, the father of the plaintiff and relatives formed an opinion to purchase another cultivating land for the best interest of the minors. By using the sale consideration received from the 2 ^nd defendant as per Ext.B2, the father of the plaintiffs immediately purchased 1 acre 42 cents of paddy land for and on behalf of the plaintiffs from one Anandan through Ext.B1 sale deed using the sale consideration of Rs.8000 received from the 2 ^nd defendant. The sale consideration received from the 1 ^st defendant as per Ext.B3 was utilized for the educational expenses of the plaintiffs and their family expenses. Every guardian has the right to alienate the property of the minors for their benefit. The guardian need not approach the civil court for permission.

4. Originally from the side of the plaintiff, PWs 1 to 5 were examined, and Ext.A1 to A6 documents were mar