A sale deed executed by a widow as guardian of a minor is binding on the minor even though she does not describe herself as guardian of the minor in the sale deed, if the sale deed is for the benefit of the estate of the minor and the minor does not challenge the sale deed within time after obtaining majority.

K. P. Singh, J.

1. THIS writ petition arises out of a suit filed by the petitioners for partition of their share in the disputed property under section 176 of the UP ZA and LR Act. The plaintiffs-petitioners had claimed 1/3 share in the disputed property on the basis of the following pedigree ;-

2. THE petitioners had not accepted Smt. Sumaria as widow of Ajodhya and had claimed 1/3 share in the disputed property per pedigree given above.

The claim of the petitioners was contested by the contesting opposite parties as would be evident from the issues framed in the suit.

3. THE trial court partly decreed the plaintiffs' suit as is evident from the judgment dated 6-5-1966 (Annexure 7'). THEreafter the petitioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed and in second appeal also the petitioners have failed, as is evident from the judgment dated 30-7-1975. Aggrieved by the judgments of the revenue courts the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. THE learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the sale deed of the year 1906 was not binding upon the petitioners because it was not executed by Smt. Somaria as guardian of the petitioners. Before me it has been admitted that Smt. Somaria was widow of Ajodhya, though originally the petitioners had denied that Smt. Somaria was widow of Ajodhya.

The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the first appellate court has wrongly refused to examine the contents of various sale deeds.

5. THE third contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the sale deed of the year 1906 did not relate to plot no. 290 in the present suit, yet the revenue courts have treated that plot as part of the sale deed of the year 1906.

6. LASTLY it has been contended that the statement of Bhagwati has not been considered while dealing with the claim of the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the petitioners' conduct in denying Smt. Sumaria as widow of Ajodhya is enough to disentitle them to press their claim in the present writ petition.

7. THE second submission of the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties is that the sale deed of the year 1906 is fully binding upon the petitioners even though Smt. Sumaria has not described herself as guardian of the plaintiffs-petitioners while selling the property belonging to the petitioners. It has been stressed that the sale deed was for the benefit of the estate of the minor hence it was binding upon the petitioners.

8. THE third submission on behalf of the contesting opposite parties was that the mistake regarding plot no. 290 was only a clerical mistake in sale deed of the year 1906 and the revenue courts have correctly construed that document and they have arrived at correct conclusion. According to the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties the revenue courts in the impugned judgments have considered relevant evidence on record and they have arrived at correct conclusions, hence their judgments need not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

In rejoinder the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as Smt. Somaria did not transfer the property of the minor treating the sold property as the property of the minor, hence the contention of the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties based upon the dictum of law laid down in Mukundi v. Sarabsukh, ILR 6 All. 417 at 419 (1) and Mathu Nadar v. Chinnadorai Nadar, AIR 1951 Madras 643 should not be accepted.

9. I have considered the contentions raised on bernlf of the parties. I think that the petitioners wrongly asserted that Smt. Samaria was not widow of Ajodhya, and thereby they have weakened their stand. The finding of fact recorded by the revenue courts that Smt. Sumaria