The central legal point established in the judgment is that the sale of a minor's share of property must be for legal necessity, and the authority of the Karta to dispose of the property is subject to the requirement of legal necessity.

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.

1. Respondent-plaintiff, Balbir Singh filed suit for possession of 1/6th share of the property described in the plaint by questioning sale deed dated 26.4.1956 on the ground that the plaintiff was minor on the date of sale and was not bound by the sale deed.

2. The suit was contested on the ground that the property was sold by Karta of the joint family as an act of good management, which was binding on the plaintiff.

3. The trial court dismissed the suit. It was held that the suit property was ancestral property in which the, plaintiff had a right. In the sale deed Ex.D.1, the plaintiff was mentioned as minor. Plea that sale was for the benefit of the minor and for the benefit of the estate, was upheld.

4. On appeal, findings of the trial court have been reversed. Finding of the trial court on the question that sale was for the benefit of the minor and for the benefit of the estate has been reversed. In para 13, it has been observed that about 300 bighas of land was sold under the impugned sale in which the plaintiffs share was about 50 bighas. Recitals in the sale deed that land was being sold for discharge of debt, installation of tubewell, redemption of land, education and bringing up of the plaintiff, were not proved. Three transactions of purchase of land Exhibits DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 were for a total consideration of Rs. 33,500/- only. In para 14, it was observed that the plaintiff was not proved to owe any debt; the plaintiff had already left studies much earlier. There was no evidence that tubewell was required to be or was installed. As regards purchase in Pilibhit, it was observed that DW-3 Hardwar Gupta examined by the defendants had no personal knowledge regarding the transactions and no attempt was made to identify the persons who were vendees. Certified copies of the sale deed were not produced. The plaintiff or the other vendees had not shifted to Pilibhit. There was no evidence of spending of substantial amount on the plaintiff after the sale, the Trial court wrongly observed that much larger area was purchased as compared to the area sold.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that sale by a natural guardian is voidable and unless sale deed is challenged, the suit of the plaintiff could not be decreed. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Vishwambhar and Ors. v. Laxminarayan (Dead) through LRs and Anr., (2001)6 S.C.C. 163 in this regard. He further submitted that a Karta could legally dispose of the suit property without permission of the court and the minor could not question the same. He relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2371, Divya Dip Singh and Ors. v. Ram Bachan Mishra and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1465 and Bara Singh v. Kashmira Singh and Ors., J.T. 1990(3) S.C. 843. He then submitted that the alienee need not prove as to how consideration money was applied, as held by the Apex Court in Radhakrishnadas and Anr. v. Kaluram (dead) and after him his LRs, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 574 and by a Division Bench of this Court in Shankarlal and Ors. v. Lakhbir Singh and Ors., (1968)70 P.L.R. 26.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the vendors were neither natural guardians nor Karta and the plaintiff has filed cross objections questioning the finding to the effect that the sale was by Karta. In any case, finding recorded by the lower appellate court that sale was without legal necessity, was a finding of fact. She relied upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Badri Singh v. Ram Sanjivani 1982 Allahabad Law Journal 1257 to submit that transfer of share of minor by major brothers acting as de-facto guardians, was void. She also referred to the sale deed in which the vendors are described as guardians and not as Karta. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Rajalakshmi and Ors. v. Minor Ramachandran and Anr., A.I.R. 1967 Madras 113 that sale of prop