JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the decree dated August 9, 1968, passed by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, reversing the decree dated January 27, 1967, passed by judicial Officer Tanda, district Faizabad in suit no. 156 under Sections 229-B/176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The appellant, Ram Lakhan filed a suit claiming to be a co-bhumidhar with th share in certain lots and seeking the division of holdings. The trial court by its order dated January 27, 1967, decreed the suit. The lower appellant court by its order dated August 9, 1968 has, however, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had no title in the land in suit. Ram Lakhan has now come up in second appeal before this Court. 4. The first ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ram Chander was not natural guardian of minors Sita Ram and Sri RAm Within the meaning of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956. He was only de facto guardian and de facto guardian of minor under Section 11 of the said Act has absolutely no right to make transfer of minors property and as such the sale deed executed by Ram Chander regarding property of Sita Ram and Sri Ram, minors in favour of Ram Bux was absolutely void. consequently the sale deed executed by Ram in favour of defendant respondent nos. 1 to 7 was also of no use, and that the title of the land remained with Sita Ram and Sri Ram even after the sale deed executed by Ram Chander. Therefore, the sale deed executed by Sita Ram and Sri Ram in favour of the plaintiff-appellant was valid. The trial court had rightly held that on this basis the plaintiff-appellant had got th share in the land in dispute, where as the contrary view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner was entirely illegal and incorrect. 5. A perusal of the record would shaw that the Achaibar, Ram Chandra, Shyam Chandra, Sita Ram and Sri Ram were the bhumidhars of the land in suit Achaibar having , Ram Chandra and Shyam Chandra having th and Sita Ram and Sri Ram having th share. 5. A perusal of the record would shaw that the Achaibar, Ram Chandra, Shyam Chandra, Sita Ram and Sri Ram were the bhumidhars of the land in suit Achaibar having , Ram Chandra and Shyam Chandra having th and Sita Ram and Sri Ram having th share. Ram Chandra and Shyam Chandra executed a sale deed in respect of their th share in favour of Ram Bux and Ram Bux executed a sale deed of the same land in favour of defendant-respondents no. 1 to 7. Sita Ram and Sri Ram were minors under the guardianship of Ram Chandra, their brother. Ram Chandra also executed a sale deed in favour of Ram Bux in respect of share of Sita Ram and Sri Ram acting as their guardian. Ram Bux also transferred this share in favour of defendant-respondents by a sale deed. Subsequently when Sita Ram and Sri Ram became major, they executed another sale deed in respect of their share in the land in favour of the plaintiff-appellant Ram Lakhan. The question which is arising for determination in this case is which of the two sale deeds in respect to the share of Sita Ram and Sri Ram would he held valid, the one execute by their guardian when they were minors, or the other executed by themselves when they became major. The trial court has held that the sale deed executed by the guardian in respect of the property of the minors was in effective and merely a waste paper, where as the other sale deed executed by Sita Ram and Sri Ram in favour of the plaintiff-appellant was valid and effective. The lower appellate court has held to the contrary. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Nathuni and others v. Mahesh Misra and others A.I.R. 1963 Patna p. 146 at p. 149, in which a Bench of Patna High Court has observed as follows: "The next contention on behalf o the appellants is that in any case, the sale deed cannot be executed now in favour of the plaintiff in view of the subsequent changes in the law, and reference was made to Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. Apparently, the contract for sale, or for the matter of that, the sale deed in favour of defendants second party, were executed long before this Act came in to force. Apparently, the contract for sale, or for the matter of that, the sale deed in favour of defendants second party, were executed long before this Act came in to force. Section 11 of the said Act provides that after commencement of this Act no person shall be entitled to dispose of, or deal with, the property of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being a de facto guarding of the minor. There are three objections: first, that this objection is not available to the appellant for the reasons stated above secondly, that this action does not deal with the disposal of the undivided interest in a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara school of law. As a matter of fact, Section 12 provides that no guardian shall be appointed for the minor in respect of the undivided interest in a joint Hindu family. It cannot be reasonably be argued that Section 11 bars as sale by a karta and manager of a joint family even through the sale deed is for legal necessity or for the benefit of the estate. I fail to understand how Section 11 can be pleaded as a bar to the disposal of joint family property by the manager or the karta of the family for legal necessity. It seems beyond controversy that if the minor is a member of a joint family governed by the Mitakshara law, the father as karta or manager is entitled to the management of the whole co-parcenary property, including the minor's interest. It would be observed that the above decision relates to a case in which a sale deed had been expected on Behalf of a minor before the Hindu Minority of Guardianship Act, 1956 came into force. Section 6 of this Act as laid down that the natural guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minors person as well as in respect of the minor's property (excluding his or her undivided in interest in joint family property) are the father and after him the mother provided that the custody of the minor who has not completed the age of five years s shall ordinarily be with the mother. Thus, the brother has not be recognized as a natural guardian of a Hindu minor. Thus, the brother has not be recognized as a natural guardian of a Hindu minor. Under Section 8 of the Act, even the natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court mortgage or charge or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor and any such disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, is a voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. Further, no Court shall be grant permission of the natural guardian to do any of the acts such as to transfer the immovable property of the minor except is case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor. Apart form natural guardians, the Act recognises de facto guardian. Section 11 of the Act provides as follows: "11. De facto guardian not to deal with minor's property. After the commencement of this Act, no personal shall be entitled to dispose of or, deal with, the property of the Hindu Minor merely on the ground of his her being the de facto guardian of the minor." Thus, the Act imposes a total restriction on de facto guardian's disposing or dealing with the property of the Hindu minor. A brother falls in the category of a de facto guardian. There, an transfer of the share of a minor by his brother acting as de fatto guardian in illegal and ineffective. The trial court has taken the correct view of law. The view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner is quite erroneous in law and perverse. 7. The result would be that the sale deed executed by Sita Ram and Sri Ram in favour of the plaintiff-appellant is a valid sale, whereas as the sale deed in respect of the share of Sita Ram and Sri Ram by their de facto guardian in favour of Ram Bux and the subsequent sale deed by Ram Bux in favour of the defendant-respondent are invalid the confer no title at all. The plaintiff appellant thus acquired th share in the bhumidhari holding in in question and is entitled to division of the holding for his share. The trial court had rightly decreed the suit. The judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner setting aside the order of the trial court is in contravention of the law. 8. The plaintiff appellant thus acquired th share in the bhumidhari holding in in question and is entitled to division of the holding for his share. The trial court had rightly decreed the suit. The judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner setting aside the order of the trial court is in contravention of the law. 8. I, therefore, allow the second appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate court and restore the order of the trial court.