A sale deed executed by a minor is not void but voidable and can be set aside by the court if it is not for legal necessity or for the benefit of the minor.

S. C. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 3 and 5 to 7 are the appellants in this First Appeal since purchases by defendant Nos. 3 to 7 under Exts. A and B have been declared by the trial Court to be invalid.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 is the mother and natural guardian of plaintiff No. 2. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are members of the joint family of which plaintiffs are also members as per the following genealogy

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF Nos. I and 2 and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are members of the Scheduled Tribe and are Hindus governed by Mitakshara School of Law. They possess rayati lands and Choukidar Service lands. On abolition of services by the Orissa Village Services Abolition Act, 1964 with effect from 1-5-1965, the service tenure lands vested in the State Government and were settled with plaintiff No. 2 and. defendant No. 1 in respect of some portions and with defendant No. 2 in respect of some other portions.

( 4 ) CASE of the plaintiffs is that defendant No. 1 committed fraud and got a sale deed (Ext. A) executed and registered from plaintiff No. 1 for herself and on behalf of her minor son in respect of rayati lands as mentioned therein on 10-5-1966 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 which is neither for consideration nor for legal necessity. Similarly, he got another sale deed executed in favour of defendant Nos. 3 to 7 in respect of some lands settled on plaintiff No. 2 on 18-9-1970 without consideration and legal necessity. Besides, such sales are invalid without sanction of the competent court of law under S. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act as well as under S. 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. On the basis of these sale deeds when defendants created disturbance in possession of the plaintiffs in the year 1972, suit was filed for partition of the suit lands in Schedules A, B-2 and B 3 lands in three equal shares by setting aside the sale transactions.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 filed a written statement. Defendant No. 7 filed a separate written statement, Case of defendant No. 1 is that plaintiff No. 2 was born after death of his father and defendant No. 1 became the Choukidar. There was previous partition and sales were for legal necessity and consideration without any coercion or undue influence. Defendant No. 7 asserted that he enquired about the legal necessity and paying the consideration purchased the lands and is in possession of the same.

( 6 ) TRIAL Court on assessment of evidence found that there was no fraud, coercion or undue influence, these sale deeds are without consideration and there was no legal necessity. Both the sale transactions are invalid under S. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Ext. A is invalid under S. 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. It held that Choukidari Bhogra Lands have been partitioned between defendant No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2. Accordingly, it decreed the suit for partition of `a' Schedule rayati lands.

( 7 ) PLAINTIFFS and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have not assailed the decree. Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 to 7 have filed this appeal with regard to the setting aside of sale deeds Exhibits A and B.

( 8 ) MR. R. C. Rath, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that findings of the trial Court are neither supportable in law or on fact. Let me examine the legal position first.

( 9 ) TRIAL Court held the sales are invalid under Sec. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Admittedly, vendors under Exts. A and B are members of the Scheduled Tribe. Section 3 (2) of the said Act provides that the Act shall not apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe unless the Central Government otherwise directs by notification. No such direction has been filed in this case. Accordingly, Mr. Rath is correct in his submission that trial Court erred in law in finding that the sale transactions are invalid under the said Act.

( 10 ) NEXT question of law is whether sale deed Ext. A dt, 10-5-1966 is invalid under S. 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act. There is no dispute tha