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, redemptio