JUDGMENT

Niamatullah, J. - This appeal was preferred by one Mt. Maida who was the principal defendant in the suit out of which it arose. She died during the pendency of the appeal and is now represented by her son Qutubullah and heirs of the other son Wali Muhammad, who also died during the pendency of the appeal.

2. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs B. Kishan Bahadur Singh and three others for recovery of Rupees 6,249-12-0 as damages for certain property having passed out of their possession. The property had been transferred to them by Mt. Maida acting as the guardian of her minor sons Qutubullah and Wali Muhammad, under a sale deed dated 30th July 1908.

3. The circumstances which led to the present litigation are not in dispute. One Namdar died in 1907 leaving his widow Mt. Maida and three sons, Chhedi, Qutubullah and Wali Muhammad. Chhedi died in 1915 and is now represented by his heirs defendants 2 to 4. At the time of Namdar's death and for some time after it Qutubullah and Wali Muhammad were minors. Namdar left shares in several villages. Mt. Maida was appointed guardian of the person and property of her minor sons by the District Judge of Gorakpur, Namdar was indebted to certain persons. An application was made on behalf of Mt. Maida for permission to transfer the four annas and two pies and two suls share said to belong to her minor sons. The sale was to be made in favour of the present plaintiffs in respect of six annaa four pies share belonging to the three sons of Namdar. The District Judge granted permission to Mt. Maida to sell the minor's share. He did not himself make any enquiry as regards the necessity for the alienation but asked a Munsif to investigate and report. On receipt of the Munsif's report the District Judge sanctioned the sale which was effected on the 30th July 1908. On the same date an agreement was executed by Mt. Maida and her son Chhedi, Mt. Maida acting as the guardian of her sons, Qutubullah and Wali Mohammad. A share in another village was hypothecated as collateral security. The agreement provided that

if any interference or loss is caused in the share sold or the sale consideration of the vendees by any act of us, the executants, or our heirs, the vendees shall be at liberty to recover the sale consideration together with damages, penalty and costs incurred in Court with interest, etc., at the rate of annaa four per rupee per annum to be calculated from the date of execution from all the rights, interests and zamindari items appertaining or that may appertain to our six anna share in mauza Pakri....

4. The vendees obtained possession of the share sold to them under the deed-to which reference has already been made. In 1922 Qutubullah and Wali Muhammad instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed on their behalf by their mother and for recovery of possession of two-thirds of the property covered by the sale deed alleging fraud and collusion on the part of the vendees and pleading want of authority on the part of Mt. Maida to transfer their share. Among other pleas the vendees put forward the plea of limitation. The Court of first instance negatived the plaintiff's case of fraud and collusion but held that the sanction given by the District Judge for the sale made by Mt. Maida on behalf of her minor sons was not a valid sanction as it contravened the provisions of Sections 30 and 31, Guardians and Wards Act. The sale was considered for that reason to be one without the permission of the District Judge and therefore voidable at the option of the minors. It decreed the suit of one of the minors, who, ac. cording to its finding, had attained majority within three years of the institution of the suit. He dismissed the suit of the other minor holding that he had attained majority before three years of the institution of the suit and whose suit was therefore barred by limitation. The vendees and one of the plaintiffs of that suit appealed to this Court. It was eventually held that