JUDGMENT

Rachhpal Singh, J. - This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit instituted by them against the defendants-respondents to recover possession over the property specified in the plaint and mesne profits. The plaintiffs and their father Sheoharan Singh, who constituted a joint family, owned fractional shares in villages Turwa, Pipraul and Atauli. On 10th December 1919, Sheoharan Singh executed a sale-deed in consideration of Rs. 10,500 in favour of Rachhu Singh under which he sold the shares owned by the joint family in the aforesaid three villages. On the same date, he purchased a two-anna share in village Basgaon from one Lochan Singh for a sum of Rs. 12,000. Sheoharan Singh died in 1927. Rachhu Singh died about seven years before the date of the suit. The plaintiffs alleged in their plaint that the sale-deed which their father executed in favour of Rachhu Singh on 10th December 1919, was not binding upon them for the following reasons:

Sheoharan Singh was a man of weak intellect and understanding and Rachhu Singh, who got him to execute was entirely under the influence of the sale-deed under which property worth Rs. 25,000 was sold for Rupees 10,500. (2) That nothing was paid to Sheoharan Singh as the price of the property sold, and so the deed, was without consideration. (3) Rachhu Singh falsely represented to Sheoharan Singh that the income of the two anna share in Basgaon was more than the income of the property in suit. (4) That the sale was not executed by Sheoharan Singh of his free will (5) That the sale was not for the benefit of the joint family and no benefit was, in fact, derived therefrom, by the family.

2. The defendants denied all the allegations detailed above. Their case was that the father of the plaintiffs sold the property in suit for Rs. 10,506 and the sale was for the benefit of the joint family and was binding upon the plaintiffs. The Court below found that the father of the plaintiffs received, full consideration for the sale-deed, that the allegations of fraud, undue influence, want of consideration and alleged incapacity of Sheoharan Singh were not true. It held that the sale was made for the benefit of the joint family. It therefore dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the decree passed by the Court below.

3. In this Court the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants, did not press the pleas of fraud, undue influence, want of consideration and the alleged incapacity of the father of the plaintiffs. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants that according to Hindu law, the father of the plaintiffs was incompetent to sell the property in suit even though the sale was made for the benefit of the joint family, and that the sale was not, as a matter of fact, for the benefit of the family. The argument addressed to us on behalf of the appellants thus resolves itself into two questions. The first is whether under the Hindulaw... the father of the plaintiffs, who was the head of the joint family, was competent to sell the property in suit, assuming that the sale was beneficial. to the family. The second is whether the sale was for the benefit of the joint family. The power of a manager of a joint Hindu family has been held to be identical with that of the manager for an infant heir. In the well-known case of Hunooman Persaud Pandey v. Mt. Munraj Koonweree 1954 6 M.I.A. 393 their Lordships of the Privy Council defined the powers of a manager of the Hindu joint family. They observed:

The power of the manager for an infant heir to charge an estate not his own is, under the Hindu law, a limited and qualified power. It can only be exercised in a case of need, or for the benefit of the estate. But whore in the particular instance, the charge is one that a prudent owner would make, in order to benefit the estate, the bona fide lender is not affected by the precedent mismanagement of the estate. The actual pressure on the estate, the danger to be av