Plea taken regarding lack of legal necessity.

Defendants 1 to 5 and 7, who had lost in the Courts below are the appellants in this second appeal, which arises out of a suit instituted by the first respondent herein tor recovery of possession of the suit property and for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,290 towards past mesne profits and also for future mesne profits. The suit properties according to the first respondent, were the self-acquired properties of one Nataraja Pillai, his paternal grandfather. Nataraja Pillai, executed a settlement deed on 2nd March, 1951, in respect of the suit properties giving a life estate in favour of his wife Ponnukkannu Achi and the vested remainder in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent, at the time of the settlement, was only a child, aged about 4 months. According to the terms of the settlement deed, Ponnukkannu is to have a life estate without any powers of alienation. While so, Ponnukkannu Achi purporting to act as guardian of the then minor first respondent and on her own behalf, sold the suit properties to one Shanmugham Pillai on 15th July, 195 7. It was claimed by the first respondent that the said sale was invalid so far as his right in the property is concerned as Ponnukkannu Achi is not the legal guardian of the first respondent. In addition, it was also contended by the first respondent that the debts referred to in the sale deed were all false and that there was no necessity also for the sale of the properties and that the sale was also not for the benefit of the then minor first respondent and it is therefore, null and void. The first respondent, therefore, claimed that he is entitled to ignore the sale deed and recover possession of the properties. Ponnukkannu Achi appears to have died later and thereafter, the first respondent claimed that he is entitled to possession of the suit properties from the legal representatives of the deceased vendee from Ponnukkannu Achi viz., Shanmugham Pillai whose legal representatives are the appellants. The fifth appellant is an alienee of a portion of the suit properties. According to the first respondent, the lands will yield about 18 to 20 kalams per mah and the lands are double crop lands and he restricted his claim to mesne, profits for three years prior to the suit at 7 kalams per mah i.e., 35 kalams per year at the rate of Rs. 13 per kalam. After deducting the kist of about Rs. 25 the first respondent claimed past mesne profits for the years 1968-69, 1,969-70 and 1970-71 at a sum of Rs. 1290 besides future mesne profits.

2. The suit was resisted mainly by the first appellant whose written statement was adopted by the other appellants and their case is as follows:-It was contended by them that the allegation that the suit properties were the ancestral properties of Nataraja Pillai is not true. The settlement deed dated 2nd March, 1951, executed by Nataraja provided for a life enjoyment for Ponnukkannu and since Ponnukkannu died after the Hindu Succession Act XXX of 1956, the estate given to Ponnukkannu became enlarged into a full estate and therefore, the first respondent was not entitled to any rights under the settlement and had no right whatever to impugne the sale deed in favour of Shanmugham Pillai. The further case of the appellants was that the sale deed dated 15th July, 1957 in favour of Shanmugham Pillai is only by the legal guardian of the first respondent and he brought about the transaction of sale and also attested the sale deed. It was claimed by the appellants that besides attesting the sale deed, he had also executed a registered security bond in favour of Shanmugham Pillai guaranteeing the title of the vendors in favour of Shanmugham Pillai and that security bond is over the joint family properties belonging to the first respondent and his father and since the security is binding on the first respondent also, he cannot question the sale deed in favour of Shanmugham Pillai. The appellant would have it that though the sale was effected in the name of