( 1. ) THIS second appeal is by the plaintiff.

( 2. ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiffs father who possessed lands in villages Nawapara and Dongripali died in the year 1948. The plaintiff was then a minor. On 17-4-1953, Smt. Phoolkunwar (defendant No. 3), the mother of the plaintiff, executed a sale-deed of the immovable property in suit, viz. , Plots Nos. 32/8 and 32/9 of village Nawapara in favour of defendants 1 and 2 and possession was also delivered to the vendees. The sale-deed was executed by Smt. Phoolkunwar for herself and as guardian of the minor plaintiff. Though the plaintiff attained majority in the year 1956, the present suit was filed in the year 1963 challenging the sale in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The sale was challenged on the grounds that it was without consideration and that it was not for legal necessity. It was, therefore, urged that the sale was void, that the defendants 1 and 2 were trespassers and that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the lands.

( 3. ) THE allegation of the defendants was that Smt. Phoolkunwar found it difficult to manage the lands from both the villages. She, therefore, transferred the lands from village Nawapara and purchased some lands in the other village. Even Manohar (Smt. Phoolkunwars husband) himself had disposed of some lands from Nawapara and had settled down in the other village. The sale was for good consideration and it being for legal necessity was binding on the plaintiff. It was also urged that the suit was barred by limitation, not having been filed within three years of the plaintiff attaining majority.

( 4. ) THE suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court and the said decree was confirmed by the lower appellate Court also. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed this second appeal.

( 5. ) SHRI Jakatdar, learned counsel for the appellant, urged before me that the Courts below erred in law in holding that the sale was for good consideration, that it was for legal necessity and that the suit was barred by limitation.

( 6. ) ON the question as to whether there was payment of adequate consideration for the sale or not, I do not find any justification for taking a different view. But I find that the finding on the question of legal necessity is not sustainable. The finding of legal necessity is based on two factors, viz. , that it was difficult for the guardian of the minor to manage the property at both the villages and that out of the sale consideration new properties were purchased at the other village. The two villages are not at very great distance; and though there is a vague allegation that some property was purchased at the other village, no details as to the property purchased or whether it was equivalent to the property sold from village Nawapara were given. I, therefore, find it difficult to sustain that finding. In my opinion, the burden is on the purchaser to show that there was, in fact, pressure on the property or that the transfer was for legal necessity. The standard of proof required in such cases is not satisfied in this case. That finding of the Courts below is, therefore, set aside.

( 7. ) THIS brings me to the question of limitation. The suit was filed on 11-2-1963 when the Indian Limitation Act of 1908 was in operation. Article 44 of the Act was to the following effect:-

The question that arises for my consideration in this case is as to whether the defendant No 3 Smt. Phoolkunwar was a guardian of the plaintiff, as the expression "guardian" is understood and interpreted by the Courts in this country. Shri Jakatdar, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the expression "guardian" refers to only the lawful guardian, viz. , a natural guardian of the ward or a guardian appointed by the Court. A de facto guardian or a manager is outside the scope of the expression "guardian" used in this article. Shri Verma, learned counsel for the respondents, has conceded this position in law which is also well se