The power of the manager of an infant heir to charge an estate is limited and can only be exercised for the benefit of the estate, justified by legal necessity.

Ananthakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. While the plaintiff was a minor the suit land belonging to him was sold to the defendant by D. Ramakrishna Rao who held a power-of-attorney as agent of Sundaramma, the mother and guardian of the plaintiff. The sale was for Rs. 300 under Ex. 1 dated 3rd February 1912. The plaintiffs suit was filed within three years after his becoming major, and the prayer in the plaint was to set aside the sale-deed and to recover possession with mesne profits.

2. The defendants plea was that the sale was valid and binding on the plaintiff. Both the lower Courts upheld the defendants plea and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has accordingly preferred this second appeal.

3. It is better to note the recitals in the sale-deed in the first instance. Such recitals form a contemporaneous record of the representations made to the alienee, on the faith of which the alienee purchased the property. In the sale deed the only recital is that the property was sold for " our expenses." Next I proceed to note the exact averments in the written statement filed by the defendant in the present suit. Para. 2 of the written statement is as follows:

The said Ramakrishna Rao effected the sale on behalf of the next friend under the mukhtarnama obtained from her. Therefore the said sale should be confirmed. At the time of the sale suit land was barren. The plaintiffs next friend could not pay Government theerva. Fearing that the suit land would be lost if it was sold by auction for Government revenue and with the intention of affording facilities for the maintenance of plaintiff she sold the suit land. The sale is not fraudulent.

4. On these pleadings issue 2 was framed by the trial Court to the following effect: " whether the sale deed is valid and binding on plaintiff."

5. The following are the facts, either found by the lower Court or admitted. The plaintiff is an inamdar owning large properties, Defendant 1 as D. W. 1 admitted that the whole of the Kyasankere village is the shrothriem of the plaintiffs family. The plaintiff pays about Rs. 800 as assessment to Government. D. W. 9 says that The plaintiffs estate was possessed of vast extent of lands worth about Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 80,000. The plaintiffs uncle and father had deposited about Rs. 8,000 in the Local Fund Office. It was the plaintiff who drew the amount about three or four years ago. The plaintiffs family was a rich family and there were also outstandings due to the family.

6. In the face of these admissions, it is difficult to see how the sale could be upheld on the strength of the recital in the sale-deed, viz., that the suit property was sold for the purpose of meeting the maintenance expenses of the plaintiff and his mother.

7. With reference to the allegations made in the written statement, we have again the following facts either proved or admitted. The suit property is under a, tank; the said tank is in proper condition. Some other lands of the plaintiffs estate are under a different tank which breached some years ago. But the tank under which the suit lands are situated is in a proper condition. Two-thirds of plaint lands had been always under cultivation except for two years prior to the sale. The remaining one-third of the suit land was always waste. The assessment due on the suit land was Rs. 23-7-0. P.W. 2 says that he was paying Rs. 50 as rent while he was a tenant. The District Munsif remarked that even if that be true " the income from the land would not be up to much." The plaintiffs mother was practically a pardanashin woman. She " had a vast extent of lands more than she could manage:" See D. W. 9. The defendant did not ask Sundaramma directly about the circumstances connected with the sale. The defendant was a tenant of the estate and has his own lands, five fields off the suit lands. The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs family and knew the plaintiffs family since plaintiffs grand-fathers time.

8. The plaintiff is a big inamdar and possessed of large