Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This is defendants’ appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. and having lost in both the Courts below, he has come up in this appeal. The appeal has arisen from judgment and decree dated 27th January, 2011 passed by Sri Gopal Shankar Pathak, Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Rampur in Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2008 dismissing appeal and confirming the judgment dated 7th May, 2008 of Trial Court i.e. Smt. Noopur, Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, Rampur passed in Original Suit No. 171 of 2004.

2. While hearing this appeal under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C., this Court formulated only one substantial question of law having arisen in this appeal, needs to be adjudicated by this Court:

Whether defendants-appellants were obliged to obtain permission under Section 29 of Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1890”) or Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1956”) from District Judge before selling the share of the property of minor despite the fact that defendant-appellant No. 1, who is the head of Joint Hindu Family and the property in dispute was a joint Hindu Property, in which the minor had her share.

3. Heard Syed Fahim Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri P.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The plaintiff-respondent instituted suit No. 171 of 2004 for cancellation of sale-deed dated 9.10.2003, which was decreed by Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.2008 and thereagainst defendants’ appeal No. 35/08 has also been dismissed by Lower Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 27.1.2011. Both the Courts below have held that property in dispute belongs to a minor and there being no permission obtained from District Judge, sale-deed executed by the mother of minor relating to property of minor was illegal. On this aspect, Trial Court formulated issue No. 1, which was returned against defendant-appellants. Sri Syed Fahim Ahmed, Advocate, placing reliance on Apex Court’s decision in Sri Narayan Bal and others v. Sridhar Sutar and others, (1996) 8 SCC 54, contended that no such permission was required. The Courts below have committed patent error and impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

5. Sri Sinha, however, contended that natural guardian of minor was her mother Smt. Ram Kali widow of Bhajan Lal and even if she was residing separately with her son and one Khayali Ram, that would not deprive her, status of guardian and therefore, property in question could not have been sold by defendants-appellants even if defendant 1 (grand-mother of minor) was Head and elder of Joint Hindu Family, without seeking permission of District Judge under Section 29 Act, 1890 or under Section 8 of Act, 1956.

6. Before coming to answer the above question, it would be appropriate to have a brief factual matrix of the case, which would help in arriving at a just conclusion.

7. The dispute relates to property i.e. Gata No. 191, area 0.560 hectare and Gata No. 248, area 0.227 hectare, situate at Village Maminpur Ahmdabad Swar, District Rampur. Sri Devi Das, Son of Hulasi was bhumidhar with transferable rights and tenure holder of the aforesaid land. He had four sons namely Bhajan Lal, Ram Chandar, Ram Charan and Ratan Lal.

8. Bhajan Lal died during lifetime of Devi Das, leaving his son Dharampal. In other words, the plaintiff, Dharam Pal, is the grandson of Devi Das, (now deceased). Defendant No. 1 Smt. Ramwati is widow of Devi Das and grandmother of Dharampal.

9. Defendants 2 and 3, as already said, are the sons of late Devi Das. At the time of death of Devi Das, plaintiff was minor being 2 or 3 years old. There was no partition of land during life time of late Devi Das and after his death, it devolved upon his legal heirs in accordance with the provisions of Section 171 of U.P.Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”).

10. The disputed land was transfe