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