JUDGEMENT:- The suit was instituted by the plaintiff within three years of her attaining the age of majority. She challenges Ext. A1 dt. 31-3-1975 executed by her parents, during her minority, in favour of the first defendant and his wife. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the sale by her parents was without obtaining the sanction of the court as required under S.8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. That Sub-Section says: "(2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the Court, - (a) .......... transfer by sale, ... ...., any part of the immovable property of the minor, or (b) …………" Sub-Section (4) says : "No court shall grant permission to the natural guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in Sub-Sec. (2) except in case of necessity or for an evident advantage to the minor." 2. Both the courts found that the sanction of the court as required under S.8(2) had not been obtained before the sale was effected, and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to recover the property. 3. Counsel for the appellants submits if the sanction of the Court had been sought it would have been, in the circumstances of this case, granted, for undoubtedly the sale was for "an evident advantage to the minor'. He contends, therefore, that the transaction should be regarded as valid. 4. The Act has prescribed transfer of immovable property of a minor without the specific sanction of the court. The sanction can be obtained only on proof of certain facts. The court has to enquire into those facts before sanction is accorded. Any transfer without obtaining the specific sanction of the court is an act which is prohibited by law and is therefore invalid. 5. Counsel for the appellants, however, submits that Ext. A1 evidences a sale supported by consideration. The amount is stated in the document to be Rs. 1,500/-. The fact that the transaction evidenced by Ext. A1 is invalid for the reason that the transfer had not been preceded by sanction of the Court, as required by the law, does not debar the appellants from recovering from the plaintiff the consideration paid by the appellants. The courts decreed value of improvements, but not the consideration paid. The plaintiff has not challenged the decree for value of improvements. 6. The courts decreed value of improvements, but not the consideration paid. The plaintiff has not challenged the decree for value of improvements. 6. Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff Shri. P. Sukumaran Nair submits that, since the document is invalid for the reason that the sanction of the court had not been obtained, the consideration which passed under the document must remain where it is and it is not repayable. He further submits that in any case there is no evidence that consideration passed. 7. That there is evidence that consideration passed under Ext. A1 cannot be doubted, for Ext. A1 says so and there is no contrary evidence. The pleadings of the appellants are also clear on the point. 8. The sale is invalid because the sanction of the court had not been sought or obtained. The invalidity of the sale does not mean that the plaintiff can keep the property and the money which either she or, on her behalf, her parents had received. She is not entitled to double enrichment. Equity demands (and no principle of law militates against it) that in a case such as this, where the invalidity arises solely by reason of failure to obtain the required sanction of the court, the consideration received by or on behalf of the plaintiff must be repaid to the parents who paid it before recovery can be had. Subject to such repayment, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the property transferred. 9. Accordingly, I declare that, as a condition for recovery, the decree shall provide for payment by the plaintiff to the appellants (defendants 1 and 5) the total consideration of Rs. 1,500/- together with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of receipt till date of payment in full in. addition to the value of improvements. The decree shall accordingly stand altered. To this limited extent, the appeal is allowed. I make no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.