RABI NARAYAN UPADHYAYA Vs. KANAK PROVA DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This only point of law in this Second Appeal is how far a father as the natural guardian of a Hindu minor son ahs power to sell the minor's estate for the benefit of the estate.

(2.) The point of law arises on the following facts : The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of khas possession of the lands in suit and declaration of her title thereto in respect of 10 bighas of land in Taluk Debgram in the district of Jalpaiguri. She filed the sit on the strength of her title by purchase on the basis of a registered deed of sale dated 21st February, 1945 executed by Mahipal Singh Roy, the natural guardian and father of minor Birendra Kanta Roy who was the owner of the lands in suit. The plaintiff's case is that she was in possession since the purchase but was dispossessed by the defendant appellant on or about the middle of Baisakh 1360 B.S. which will be about 10 years ago, i.e., about April 1953. She then instituted the suit on the 7th April, 1956.

(3.) The defence is that the defendants bought these self-same lands from Birendra Kanta Roy when he attained majority and the sale on which the defendants relied was also a registered deed dated the 21st December, 1950. When the plaintiff, therefore, filed her suit for recovery of possession and declaration of her title, the defence taken was that the sale-deed on which she as plaintiff was relying was bad because the guardian had no power to sell the lands to her and the sale by the guardian was illegal and bad. The whole question turned in the lower Courts on the legal position of guardians and their right to alienate the minor's property for the benefit of the estate.