AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Curgenven, J.—The suit was brought by two minor plaintiffs to set aside a, sale-deed executed by their mother to defendant 1. The
consideration for the sale, which was of a piece of land, was Rs. 600 of which Rs. 400 is now admitted to be binding upon the minors, both the
Courts having found that it was in discharge of a debt incurred by the father. The remaining Rs. 200, it is said, was expended upon purchasing
another piece of land for the minors. It is unnecessary here to go into the question whether a guardian has ordinarily a right to spend money for a
purpose like this as the case, in my view, is one of those in which the sale must be held binding because the preponderance of the purchase money
was for a binding purpose. That as a legal principle has been laid down now by the Privy Council in a series of cases such as AIR 1927 37 (Privy
Council) , AIR 1927 244 (Privy Council) and AIR 1927 246 (Privy Council) . It must always remain a question or applying this principle and
therefore of the discretion of the Court as to what proportion should be found to be binding in order to constitute the sale binding as a whole. In
the present case a third of the money was not appropriated to an incontestably binding purpose. My attention is drawn to a Privy Council case:
Ram Sunder Lal v. Lachhmi Narain AIR 1929 P C 143 in which out of a total consideration of Rs. 10,000 and odd some Rs. 7,000 had been
found to be not of this character. I cannot accordingly say that the lower appellate Court has committed any error of law in holding that in the
circumstances of this case the sale ought to be confirmed and the suit dismissed. I accordingly dismiss the second appeal with costs.