The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the de facto guardian to grant licenses and leases for building purposes and the necessity and benefit of such transactions to the minor's estate.

F W A Prideau, A J C—The appellant in this case is a co-sharer and lambardar of khel C of monza Palakwadi or Wardha. He sues slating that the site on which defendants' houses stand formed part of his sir field no. 28. The plaintiff contends that he attained majority on 25-8-1916. The houses were built when he was a minor, defendants being in possession of the site for the last 4 or 5 years. He claims possession.

2. Defendants denied that field no. 28 was sir or that it belonged to plaintiff. They put in a map showing the plots marked A, B and C which are all in suit. As regards the plot A, a license to build on it and on another plot was granted to defendant in 1906 on payment of Rs. 312/- by the plaintiff's step-mother Baijabai his de facto and de jure guardian. As regards the plot B, Baijabai granted a license to one Fattechand in 1906 on receipt of Rs. 60/- Fattechand built on that site and sold it to defendants in 1908 with his right to the site. Then in 1911 they obtained Baijabai's consent to the transfer paying that lady Rs. 20/- as consent money. With regard to the plot C it was pleaded that it was granted them on payment of Rs. 30/- in 1911. These transactions were by Baijabai for necessity and benefit of the minor. They were entered into in the course of the family business. Other pleas were set up which are stated in the issues. Plaintiff in reply admitted that Baijabai was his de facto guardian and pleaded that the licenses being of sir land required the sanction of the Commissioner. The following issues were framed which cover the points at variance between the parties:-

(1) Whether field no. 28 has fallen to the plaintiff's share in a partition with his co-sharers as alleged?

(2) Whether the site in suit is a part of field no. 28?

(3) Whether the site in suit is sir or whether it is declared Abadi site?

(4) Whether the site in dispute was given for consideration on 16-6-06 and on 30-7-11 to the firm of Bissessarlal Bhagwaudas for building purposes on terms similar to those on which Abadi sites are held for building purposes under the provisions of the wajib-ul-arz as contended by defendant?

(4-A) Whether Baijabai was the de facto and de jure guardian of plaintiff when the transactions were entered into?

(5) Whether the site B marked on the defendant's map of the site in dispute was given to one Fattechand on conditions mentioned in issue no. 3 above?

(6) Whether the said Fattechand had built on the land B and whether he has sold the site and building to the defendant for consideration on 23-7-1908?

(7) Whether plaintiff's agent Ganoba and mother Baijabai consented to the transfer by Fattechand for consideration on 30-7-11 as contended by the defendant?

(8) Whether the transactions mentioned in issues 4, 5, 6 and 7 are binding on the plaintiff for the reasons stated by the defendant in paragraph 4 of his written statement?

(9) If the site in dispute be recorded as abadi can plaintiff eject the defendant?

(10) If the plaintiff succeeds in getting a decree for ejectment is he liable to compensate the defendant for the nature of the structure and the well on the site as contended by the defendant?

(11) If so what is value of the said structure and the well?

(12) If the transfer of the site in suit for building purposes be proved is it void for want of sanction of Collector and on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of law forbidding the use of sir for non-agricultural purposes?

(13) Whether the rent of the site in suit was recovered by the plaintiff's agent Kashinath on 20-7-1917?

(14) If so did it amount to ratification of the transactions entered into with the defendants, regarding the site in suit during plaintiff's minority?

(15) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

3. The lower Court's findings are these. I quote from the ment of the lower appellate Court;

1 The filed no. 28 fell to plaintiff's share and belongs to him, The plot in suit forma part of no. 28/2. In the Settlement of 1891-92 No. 28 was sir, but