HEMRAJ DATTUBUVA MAHNUBHAO Vs. NATHU RAMU MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of East Khandesh and it was referred to a full bench because it raises a question on which there is a conflict of authority. The appeal relates to the validity of a sale of immoveable property by the guardian of a minor. It is agreed that such a sale may be made for necessity or the benefit of the estate, and the question is what is meant by the expression " benefit of the estate ". ' The rival views are expressed very clearly in Sir Dinshah Mulla's book on Hindu Law in paragraph 243a in which he refers to the conflict of authority and says : One view is that a transaction cannot be said to be for the benefit of the estate, unless it is of a defensive character calculated to protect the estate from some threatened danger or destruction. Another view is that for a transaction to be for the benefit of the estate it is sufficient if it is such as a prudent owner, or rather a trustee, would have carried out with the knowledge that was available to him at the time of the transaction.

(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. In the year 1914 a piece of land was sold by the mother and guardian of the present plaintiff, who was then a minor, to the defendant, and the plaintiff, shortly after he had attained the age of twenty-one years, filed this suit to set the sale aside. THE facts found by the lower appellate Court, by which we are bound in second appeal, are that the land sold was a small strip of land which was normally worth not more than Rs. 600, and the price paid for it by the purchaser was Rs. 900. THE reason why the purchaser was willing to give more than the normal value was that the piece of land lay between two pieces of land belonging to the purchaser, and he desired to unite the whole property and build upon it. THE purchase money of Rs. 900 was invested by the mother in a business-apparently a money-lending business-which had been carried on "by the minor's father, and was at the date of the sale being carried on by his mother. THEre is no evidence as to the nature of the business. THE trial Court was of opinion that the transaction was not for the benefit of the minor's estate and that the plaintiff's suit should succeed. In appeal the District Judge was of opinion that the transaction was for the benefit of the minor, and he allowed the appeal.

(3.) TWO observations upon the first of those passages suggest themselves. First, that, although all the illustrations of what would be for the benefit of the estate are illustrations of acts of a protective character, nevertheless the Privy Council did not in terms say that the expression " benefit to the estate " was to be confined to acts of that nature, and the illustrations do not purport to be exhaustive. Secondly, that, if the Privy Council considered that any transaction which was advantageous to the estate came within the description of " benefit to the estate ", then the passage which I have just read would seem to be unnecessary, because no question of principle, nor difficulty of definition, would be involved. The only question would be one of fact, whether the particular transaction was or was not advantageous to the estate. That question might sometimes be difficult to determine, but would not involve any difficulty of definition. So that, I think, the Privy Council must have been of the opinion that the words " benefit to the estate " were not intended to include every transaction which was advantageous or which a prudent owner would carry out in connection with his own estate, and this view is confirmed by the second passage quoted. It is those passages which have given rise to the contention which has found favour in a good many cases that the benefit must be of a protective character, and the tendency of decisions of this Court has undoubtedly been in favour of that view.