JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that Faguna Gouda was the owner of the suit schedule property. He had one son, namely, Basu Gouda, who predeceased him. The plaintiff is the daughter of Basu Gouda. Basu Gouda died in the year 1970 and his wife predeceased him. Faguna Gouda died in the year 1975. The plaintiff was brought up by her maternal grandmother. In the hal settlement operation, a portion of the suit land was recorded in the name of Faguna Gouda and another portion was recorded in the name of the defendant. Thereafter she came to know that one Ashumati Gouda claiming to be the daughter of Faguna Gouda alienated the entire suit land by means of two registered sale deeds in favour of the defendant. Ashumati was not the daughter of Faguna. Thus the sale deeds were never binding upon her. She issued a legal notice to the defendant not to disturb her possession. The defendant gave reply that Ashumati being the Karta of the family had alienated the property for legal necessity and for the benefit of the estate. Plaintiff got the portion of the suit land mutated in her name in Misc. Case No.231 of 1990 in the court of the Tahasildar, Jeypore. Thereafter the defendant initiated a proceeding under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. vide M.C. No.419/1991 before the Executive Magistrate, Jeypore alleging that the plaintiff is trespassing into the suit property. With this factual scenario, the plaintiff filed T.S. No.15 of 2001 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jeypore for declaration of right, title and interest and possession over the suit property and further declaration that the two nos. of sale deeds executed by one Ashumati Gouda in favour of the defendant are void and not binding on the plaintiff.

3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant is that Basu and Ashumati are the son and daughter of Faguna Gouda. Nilabati, plaintiff, is the daughter of Basu. Basu and his wife are dead. Faguna was ill. Ashumati was managing the affairs of the family. Faguna Gouda died in the year 1974. She succeeded the suit property along with the house. Plaintiff was a minor. The financial condition of the family was not good. To perform the obsequies of Basu and for maintenance of the plaintiff, she incurred loan from the neighbours. With the permission of Faguna, she incurred the loan agreeing to execute the sale deeds. Being the guardian, she executed two deeds dated 2.7.1975 and 19.1.1980 in favour of the defendant for valid consideration and delivered possession.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined five witnesses and on her behalf three documents had been exhibited. The defendant had examined five witnesses and on his behalf seven documents had been exhibited.

5. Learned trial court held that as there was no male member in the house of Faguna after his death, Ashumati being the eldest member became manager of the family and guardian of the plaintiff. Ashumati was looking after the plaintiff. To press the legal necessity, Ashumati sold the property to the defendant by two sale deeds. The transaction is valid and binding on the plaintiff. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned District Judge, Koraput at Jeypore in T.A. No.27 of 2001, which was eventually dismissed.

6. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

“(1) Whether after death of Basu Gouda, Smt. Ashumati Gouda and Smt. Nilabati Gouda became the member of the Joint Hindu Family ?

(2) Whether prior permission of the learned District Judge under the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is a sine qua non for alienating the properties by Smt. Ashumati Gouda ?

(3) Whether any allegation made by Smt. Ashu