JUDGMENT

D. S. Bajpai, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 391976 passed by the District Judge, Kheri dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1976 with costs and confirming the judgment and decree dated 131976 passed by the II Additional Munsif, Kheri by which he has dismissed the plaintiff's suit (Regular Suit No. 276 of 1970) for partition.

2. Facts giving rise to the instant second appeal are that one Dillipat was the original owner of the disputed house and he died about 28 years back leaving his son Moti Lal as heir. Moti Lal and defendants 1 to 3 formed a joint Hindu family whereafter Moti Lal also died in the year 1970 leaving the present plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 as his heirs and they became entitled to l/4th share each in the said house. It is undisputed that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 remained in possession over their respective l/4th share. On May 23, 1970 the defendant No. 1 transferred her 1/4th share in the said house in favour of defendant no. 4 who was an outsider and since then defendants 2 to 4 became owners to the extent of 1/4th share each. The suit is said to have been filed against the defendant no. 4 who was threatening the tenants and demanding the rent of the entire house. The defendant no. 4 contested the suit and pleaded that Smt. Rain Lali was the exclusive owner of the disputed house and that he had purchased the same by a registered saledeed He asserted that he was the sole owner of the disputed house and was entitled to realise the rent from the tenants, inter alia, on the ground that the house had been acquired by Moti Lal who had transferred the same in favour of Parag Deen and Parag Deen in turn transferred it to Bhola Nath and Bhola Nath transferred the house in favour of Ram Lali, defendant no. 1. The defendant denied the plaintiff's title with regard to any portion of the house. He also pleaded that on the day when Moti Lal transferred the house in favour of Parag Deen the plaintiff was not conceived. On pleadings of the parties the trial court framed issues, one of which was : whether the house in suit belonged to Dillipat and If the plaintiff had any share in the house in suit. The findings on the two issues were returned against the plaintiff. The plaintiff went in appeal and the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal upholding the findings recorded by the trial court whereupon the plaintiff came in Second Appeal No. 697 of 1976 before this Court. This Court by its judgment dated 14th January, 1985 was of the view that a new issue was required to be framed and after framing the said issue to the following effect, directed the lower appellate court to record a finding on the said issue and return the case back to this Court :

Whether the house in suit was purchased by Shrimati Ramlali out of the life Insurance Policy taken by Moti Lal in which Shrimati Ramlali was a nominee ? If so, its effect.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that under the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 which is, for convenience, reproduced hereunder :

8(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court.

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

(b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years or for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority.'

the natural guardian of a minor was not entitled to execute any deed or mortgage, transfer by sale, gift etc. without the previous permission of the Court and that Smt. Ramlali not having obtained the permission of the District Judge under this provision could not transfer the interest of the minor to the extent of l/4th share and, therefore, the saledeed executed by Smt. Ramlali was voidable and the interest of the minor not having been transferred he retained interest and was entitled to