JUDGMENT H.G. Richards, C.J. and Banerji, J. - The facts out of which this appeal arises are very simple. One Mul Chand was the certificated guardian of the plaintiffs. He managed their property for some time and shortly before his death he found himself indebted to them in the sum of Rs. 2,500. In order to discharge this liability he transferred by a document, which on the face of it appears to be a sale-deed, certain immovable property to the minors. He next proceeded to make an application to have mutation of names effected for the benefit of the minors, but before this matter could be carried out Mul Chand died. The defendants, who are the heirs of Mul Chand, then entered into possession. One of the minors has now come of age, and he brings this suit on behalf of himself and his minor brother to recover the property which was transferred into their names by Mul Chand. The defence is that a contract for sale with a minor is absolutely void, and reliance is placed on 7 CWN 441 (Privy Council) This defence on the face of it is very unmeritorious. It certainly would be a very fraudulent defence, if it had been put forward by Mul Chand, but it is to be said in his favour that if he had lived he never would have put forward the defence which is now put forward by his heirs. In our opinion the proper inference to be drawn from the peculiar facts of this case is that Mul Chand acting on behalf of the minors transferred into their names the property in question. If Mul Chand, as guardian of the minor, had negotiated with a third party and purchased on their behalf certain property and had it transferred into the names of the minors, we do not think it could for a moment be said that the transfer would be void. "We do not think that the mere fact that the property in question was the property of Mul Chand can make any difference where we find that transaction was for the benefit of the minors. No doubt if a certificated guardian had fraudulently transferred certain property of his own for more than it was worth to the minors, the minors would be able to repudiate the transfer on the ground of fraud. No doubt if a certificated guardian had fraudulently transferred certain property of his own for more than it was worth to the minors, the minors would be able to repudiate the transfer on the ground of fraud. There is, however, nothing in the Transfer of Property Act which makes a minor incapable of being the transferee of immovable property. He cannot transfer immovable property, it is true, but that is a different thing from becoming a transferee. 2. We consider that under the circumstances of this case we are entitled to make and ought to make every reasonable presumption in favour of the minors, and we consider that we are quite justified in presuming that Mul Chand in his capacity as guardian of the minors accepted the transfer on their behalf. In the view that we hold it is not necessary to express any opinion upon the broad question as to what would be the effect of a transaction in which it was clearly shown that a minor acting entirely in his own behalf contracted for and purchased immovable property. This case is devoid of all merits. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of this court and of the courts below and remand the case to the court of first instance for determination of the other question. The plaintiffs will have their costs of the appeal to this court and of the lower appellate court. The costs in the court of first instance will abide the event.