JUDGMENT M. M. Pareed Pillay, J. 1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties on the strength of title with alternative prayer for partition of 2/3 shares with mesne profits. Learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit holding that Ext. A2 assignment deed which is challenged by the plaintiffs is valid and binding on the thavazhi including the plaintiffs. 2. Plaintiffs contended that their mother, first defendant had no authority to sell the plaint schedule properties to the second defendant and that Ext. A2 assignment is not binding on them. They further contended that second defendant obtained the assignment deed from the first defendant exerting undue influence and coercion. 3. First defendant did not contest the suit. Second, defendant filed, written statement contending that the suit has been filed in collusion with the first defendant, that the first defendant was the thavazhi karanavathi, that she represented the plaintiffs in the partition deed as their guardian and that Ext. A2 assignment was supported by tarwad necessity and therefore plaintiffs cannot challenge the same. 4. S.5 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act lays down that any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of the Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in the Act. It also repeals all existing laws on the matters dealt with under the Act. After the commencement of the Act the law of guardianship hitherto applicable to Hindus whether on account of any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage having the force of law ceases to have effect with respect to all the matters dealt with under the Act. S.6 enumerates as to who can be a guardian of a Hindu minor and who shall not be entitled to be the guardian. But so far as the minor's undivided interest in the joint family property is concerned S.6 excludes it from its purview. S.8 states the powers of the natural guardian and S.8(2) prohibits the natural guardian without permission of the Court to deal with the minor's property by mortgage, sale, gift, exchange etc. As plaintiffs have only undivided interest in the joint family properties Courts' permission under S.8(2) is not necessary. 5. S.8 states the powers of the natural guardian and S.8(2) prohibits the natural guardian without permission of the Court to deal with the minor's property by mortgage, sale, gift, exchange etc. As plaintiffs have only undivided interest in the joint family properties Courts' permission under S.8(2) is not necessary. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs relying on S.33 of the Madras Marumakkathayam Act contended that there was no tarwad necessity or benefit for Ext. A2 assignment deed and so it is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. 6. Ext. A1 is the partition deed as per which certain items of properties were set apart to the first defendant and the plaintiffs. In Ext. A2 the consideration is shown as Rs. 3,500/- for 37.50 cents. Plaintiffs contend that no details are mentioned in Ext. A2 with regard to the family necessity and there is only a very vague recital that the amount is required for repairs of the building. Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid vague recital is hardly sufficient to prove family necessity. Ext. A1 shows the value of the properties as Rs. 1, 750/-. As the properties were sold for Rs. 3,500/- as per Ext. A2 it cannot be said that it is not supported by adequate consideration. Though PW 1 stated that no repair was done to the building, DW 1's evidence shows that repairs were actually effected to the building. As there is nothing to disbelieve DW 1 it has to be held that the properties were sold for the tarwad necessity. This is particularly so in view of the recitals in Ext. A2. 7. Contention of the plaintiffs that Ext. A2 was executed by the first defendant as a result of fraud and undue influence has not been proved by any cogent evidence. There is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.