JUDGMENT :- The facts necessary for the decision of this second appeal can be narrated in brief. A suit was filed in forma pauperis by the plaintiffs who claimed themselves to be sons and daughters of Gaya Prasad. defendant No. 3. It is stated that Gaya Prasad executed a conditional sale of the disputed house No. 8, Khushal Parbat, Allahabad in favour of defendant No. 4, Chaudhary Naunihal Singh. Subsequently, in the year 1959, the defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 4, namely, Gaya Prasad and Chandhary Naunihal Singh respectively, sold the house to Smt. Chandrawati Agarwal and Devi who were defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. The plaintiffs allegations were that at the relevant time when the sale-deed was executed, they were minors and the sale-deeds were not for their benefits. It is further stated that the sale had been executed by Gaya Prasad without obtaining the permission of the District Judge and, as such, it was in violation of the provisions of S. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act No. 32 of 1956. The plaintiffs claimed that the sale-deed be declared to be invalid and they be given possession of the house and compensation as well.

2. The suit was contested by defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Their contention was that the sale deed was for legal necessity and for payment of antecedent debts so they were binding on the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6 are not entitled to sue because plaintiffs No. 2 to 5 have no interest in the property being daughters of Gaya Prasad and the plaintiff No. 6 is not the son of Gaya Prasad.

3. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the sale-deed was executed for legal necessity and for payment of antecedent debts and that the sale-deed was not invalid in view of the provisions of S. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.

4. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the appeal has also been dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate court, the plaintiffs-appellants have preferred the second appeal. Only one question has been argued before me. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that in view of the provisions of S. 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the sale was invalid as the plaintiffs-appellants father did not obtain the permission of the District Judge to sell their interest in the coparcenary property. The relevant sections of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 are reproduced below :

" 6. The natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor s person as well as in respect of the minor s property (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family property) are -

(a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl - the father - and after him, the mother, provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother;

(b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate unmarried girl - the mother and after her, the father :

(c) in the case of a married girl - the husband;

Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of this section -

(a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or

(b) if he has completely and finally renounced the world by becoming a herenit (vanaprasath) or an ascetic (vatior sanyasi), Explanation - In this section, the expression " father" and " mother" do not include a stepfather and a step-mother.

........................

8. (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor s estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant.

(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court -

(a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale-gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor, or

(b) lease any pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document