SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. — Leave granted. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 313 of 2009. The Appellate Court by the impugned judgment held that there is no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed the order of the trial court which dismissed the suit preferred by the appellant original plaintiff seeking cancellation of sale deeds executed by the second respondent in favour of the first respondent.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

The appellant along with her two sisters (original plaintiffs) happened to be the daughters of respondent No.2(original defendant No.2). According to the appellant, she and her two sisters were minors when their father Khilluram expired. Thereafter, their mother i.e. second respondent, of course the guardian, sold out the suit property which belonged to their father by executing a sale deed on 9th December, 1988. According to the appellant, since the suit property belonged to their father the daughters had shares in the property, the mother could not have sold the suit property to the first respondent. The appellant, therefore, with two other sisters (proforma respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein) preferred Civil Suit No.6 of 2007 for declaration of the sale deed dated 9th December, 1988 as null and void in respect of the suit land. The appellant pleaded that the second respondent as the mother of the appellant and two other sisters has no right or authority to sell the suit land, as their shares are part of it. The sale of minors’ property cannot be done without obtaining the prior permission of the Court.

3. The second respondent in her written statement stated that the appellant and two others were her minor daughters. She is the wife of Khilluram and the equal shares of the disputed land are registered in the name of the appellant and two daughters. She had sold the entire disputed land including the shares of the daughters vide sale deed dated 1st December, 1988 which was registered on 9th December, 1988. The consideration amount received out of the said sale was spent to fulfill the requirements of the daughters i.e. appellant and proforma respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein.

4. In a separate written statement the first respondent accepted that the disputed land situated in village Ujjaili, TehsilKot Kasim is the ancestral property of Khilluram. After the death of Khilluram the said suit land was devolved on appellant, two other sisters and the second respondent jointly in equal shares. The appellant and the two other daughters were minor and their mother i.e. second respondent herein was the natural guardian. The agricultural work was done jointly by the appellant, two other daughters and the second respondent. It is stated that the suit land was sold for proper maintenance of the minor daughters.

5. On behalf of the plaintiffsappellant herein and two other sisters, Saroj (PW1), Chandra Kanat (PW2) and Pop Singh (PW3) were examined. They placed on record the documents duly exhibited as Exh.1 to 19. The respondents examined Sunder Singh (DW1), Ramphal (DW2) and Ramotar (DW3) and placed on record documents duly exhibited as A1 to A10.

6. Learned Additional District Judge framed 8 issues. The issue Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiffappellant herein:

Issue No.7 reads as follows:

“7. Whether the registered saledeeds of the land Survey No.5 and 6 made by the Defendant No.2 to different parties has been done with the motive to cause harm and usurp this land of plaintiffs No.1 to 3, ownership and rights which is wrong and contrary to the established provisions of law, and the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are entitled to challenge these two saledeeds against their interests and rights.”

The said issue was decided against the pla