JUDGMENT : Ryves, J. Oudh Behari and his son Mahabir constituted a joint Hindu family. They owned, exclusively, a dilapidated house and they had also certain rights over a compound adjoining the house in common with the owners of neighbouring houses. 2. Oudh Behari executed a deed of gift on the 22nd October, 1910, which was duly registered, for himself and on behalf of his son Mahabir, who was a minor, in favour of a relation, Badri Narain Lal, by which he conveyed to Badri Narain Lal all his own and his son's rights in the house and court-yard. Badri Narain Lal obtained possession of the premises and made preparations for re-building the house, whereupon Sheo Ghulam and his son Ram Kumar Lal took forcible possession of the property on the 2nd January, 1911. 3. Badri Narain Lal then filed this suit for possession. He based his title on the deed of gift. He made three sets of defendants to the suit: (1) Sheo Ghulam and his son, (2) Various other neighbours and relations of Oudh Behari Lal, who were interested in the court-yard, and (3) Oudh Behari Lal, and his son Mahabir through the guardianship ad litem of his father. 4. Some of the defendants disclaimed any interest In the property and were exempted. 5. The rest, with the exception of Oudh Behari Lal, denied Oudh Behari Lai's title in the property in suit, and claimed adverse possession for more than twelve years. Oudh Behari Lal admitted the gift on his own and his son's behalf. The Munsiff found that the defendants' adverse possession was not proved, that Oudh Behari Lal and his son exclusively owned the property and that it was their ancestral joint property. He, however, dismissed the suit on the ground that the deed of gift by Oudh Behari Lal was void because of the minority of his son and because it conferred no benefit to the son. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed this decree and holding that the deed of gift was not void but only voidable at the instance of the minor, decreed the suit. 6. In second appeal before us, the only ground taken is that the gift in question is absolutely void and confers no title on the plaintiff in respect of the property in dispute. 6. In second appeal before us, the only ground taken is that the gift in question is absolutely void and confers no title on the plaintiff in respect of the property in dispute. We have heard the learned Vakils of the parties at length and we have come to the conclusion that the decree of the lower court must be affirmed. 7. We do not think the decisions of the Privy Council in Mir Sarivarjan v. Fakhru-ud-din Muhammad Chowdhri, [1911] L.R. 39 I.A. 1 and in Mohori Bibi v. Dharmo Das Ghose, [1902] I.L.R., 30 Cal., 539, relied on by the appellants, have any application to this case. The father of a joint Hindu family has undoubtedly the power to alienate the ancestral property of the family under certain circumstances, without the consent of the other members of the family. He can also in any circumstances alienate the joint family property with the consent of the other members. In the present case, if Mahabir had been a major at the date of the gift, the validity of the gift would depend on whether Mahabir gave his consent and ratified the gift. In other words, the gift was voidable at the instance of Mahabir and not void ab initio. We do not think the fact that Mahabir happened to be a minor affected the validity of the gift. It will be open to Mahabir on attaining majority to repudiate or ratify the gift. We do not think that the contesting defendants, who have no title in the property and who are mere trespassers, can challenge the validity of the gift. We express no opinion on the legal effect, if any, of Mahabir having been made a party to the suit and of the admissions made on his behalf by his father who had been appointed his guardian ad litem by the plaintiff. 8. We dismiss the appeal with costs.