Short Note : 1. The suit giving rise to this appeal was instituted by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery of possession of Khasra No. 43 of village Hardi, Tahsil Rehli, District Sagar. The suit was also for return of ornaments valued at Rs 2,500/-.The plaintiff's case was that on the death of her uncle Natthoo the properties which she inherited from Natthoo were entrusted to the defendant Banshi. Banshi was also de facto guardian of the plaintiff. The plaintiff became major sometime in 1957. On 23rd February 1948, defendant Banshi executed a sale-deed of Khasra No. 43 in favour of his son Harju, defendant No. 2, for a sum of Rs. 200/-. In this sale-deed, Banshi purported to act as guardian of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's case further was that ornaments valued at Rs. 2,500/- were also in possession of defendant Banshi in the capacity of de facto guardian or manager. A part from other pleas, it was pleaded by the defendants that in 1961 a sum of Rs. 200/- relating to the sale of Khasra No. 43 was returned to the plaintiff by Ex. D-2 and the plaintiff affirmed the sale. The defendants denied any entrustment of ornaments. The trial Court decreed the suit. But in appeal, the suit was dismissed by the District Judge, Sagar. Held : A perusal of the receipt Ex. D-2 also shows that after accepting the sum of Rs. 200/- the plaintiff abandoned all rights in respect of the land. Thus sale made by defendant Banshi as de facto guardian in favour of his son was affirmed or ratified by the plaintiff. The plaintiff having ratified the sale in 1961, was not entitled to sue for recovery of possession of the land. In Kailash Chandra v. Rajani Kanta (AIR 1945 Patna 298), a case which was brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the appellant, it has been held that the sale made by a de facto guardian which is not supported by legal necessity or which is not for the benefit of the estate is void and the minor need not sue to set aside the sale. A minor can bring a suit for recovery of possession and his suit would be governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. A minor can bring a suit for recovery of possession and his suit would be governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The ruling, however, holds that the minor may choose to ratify the transaction although it is not binding on him and if the minor ratifies the transaction on attaining majority, it necessarily follows that he would have no right to recover the property sold. In view of the fact that the plaintiff ratified the sale in 1961, she was not entitled to sue for recovery of the land and the question of limitation does not arise for decision. As regards ornaments, the finding is a pure finding of fact that the ornaments were not entrusted to the defendants. Appeal dismissed.