JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - A suit for declaration of right title and interest in respect of the suit lands and for setting aside a sale deed executed by the manager of a Joint Hindu Family on the ground that the sale was not for legal necessity and consequential recovery of possession having been dismissed the Plaintiffs have, filed this appeal. 2. A brief reference to the factual position is necessary for disposal of the appeal. Plaintiffs are the daughters of one Dhanmat through his second wife, while Defendants 2-Sanu and 3-Mathura are the son and daughter respectively of said Dhanmat through his first wife. Defendant No l-Bishnu is a transferee in respect of the suit lands from Sanu. The suit lands were originally Bhogra lands which were settled in favour of Dhanmat on raiyati basis in a Bhogra Conversion Proceeding. After the death of said Dhanmat, Sanu transferred the suit lands by a registered sale deed dated 10-4-1958 in favour of Bishnu for a consideration of Rs. 700/-. After purchase, Bishnu applied for mutation which was objected to by Sanu, but subsequently there was a compromise and the lands were mutated in the same of Bishnu. Thereafter the widow of Dhanmat, Anjana, the mother of the Plaintiffs filed a review petition and the mutation was cancelled. The matter was remanded to the Tahasildar, Balangir, in all appeal filed by Bishnu. There was again a compromise during pendency of the enquiry by Tahasildar, and ultimately the lands were mutated in the name of Bishnu. The sale deed executed by Sanu has been impugned on the ground of Sanu's lack of competence to sell the lands, and also on the ground that the same was not for legal necessity interest of the estate, benefit of the family or its members. It is relevant to mention here that though in the pleadings there was no reference to any mortgage by Bishnu of the, suit lands, yet during trial of the suit it was urged that the suit lands were mortgaged with Bishnu in 1957. Defendants Sanu and Mathura did not enter appearance and were set ex parte in the suit. Bishnu alone filed written statement with, the plea that Sanu was competent to sell the lands, the sale was for family benefit, legal necessity and for consideration. Defendants Sanu and Mathura did not enter appearance and were set ex parte in the suit. Bishnu alone filed written statement with, the plea that Sanu was competent to sell the lands, the sale was for family benefit, legal necessity and for consideration. Alternatively it was pleaded that he was in adverse possession of the suit lands and the suit was barred by limitation, the suit was not properly valued and due court-fee had not been paid. It was not disputed that the Plaintiffs were minors at the time of death of Dhanmat, and at the time of execution of sale deed by Sanu. On consideration of the rival claims, six issues were framed by the trial Judge. The major issue was issue No. 1, which lead as follows: (1) In the sale of the suit land by the Defendant No. 2 Sanu Bag in favour of Defendant No. 1 Bishnu Dandasena valid for consideration and for legal necessity and has it conveyed valid right, title and interest to Defendant No. 1 ? On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge came to hold that the sale was valid, for consideration and legal necessity and a valid right, title and interest was conveyed thereby to Bishnu. On the question of claim of adverse possession, it was held that the claim of adverse possession was proved and Bishnu perfected his title also by adverse possession. The suit was held to be barred by limitation on the ground that the sale was not challenged within the prescribed period of three years from the date of Kasturi-Plaintiff No. 1's attaining majority. Peculiarly in the latter portion of the judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge again held that the suit was not barred by time, and was maintainable. The two conclusions are irreconcilable. On the question of valuation, it was' held that the suit was not properly valued and proper court-fee was not paid. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed without any order as to costs. 3. The two conclusions are irreconcilable. On the question of valuation, it was' held that the suit was not properly valued and proper court-fee was not paid. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed without any order as to costs. 3. In appeal though several grounds of attack were pressed into service to attack the sustainability of the judgment and decree of dismissal, the primary submissions were to the effect that the totality of the circumstances indicated lack of competence of Sanu to alienate the property; the evidence was at variance with the averments in the plaint; there was no material to substantiate the plea of legal necessity, family benefit; and in the absence of enquiry by the intending purchaser as to the existence of legal necessity the sale was invalid. In support of the plea that the intending purchaser was required to make bona fide enquiry, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Nanda Das and Ors. v. Muralidhar Pati and Ors., reported in 69 (1990) C.L.T. 306. On behalf of Respondent No. 1 it was submitted that the existence of legal necessity was proved by adequate evidence; there was bona fide enquiry by the purchaser before the sale and it having been established beyond a shadow of doubt that the entire or at least major portion of the consideration was spent for legal necessity or for the benefit of the family the Plaintiffs were bound by the sale and there is no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court to warrant any interference. 4. The rival contentions need careful consideration. Though there was some amount of controversy raised to the effect that during the life-time of Anjana, Sanu could not have acted as Karta or at least as manager of the family, it has to be held that under Mitakshara law a female cannot be a Karta, and only an adult male member can be a Karta. Although a Hindu Joint Family can consist of males and females, a female cannot act or be treated as a Karta of the family even when there is no male member in the family. (See Pushpa Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, ). Although a Hindu Joint Family can consist of males and females, a female cannot act or be treated as a Karta of the family even when there is no male member in the family. (See Pushpa Devi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, ). The position would, however, be different where in a Hindu Family there is no Karta, or where the male members are all minors and there is no one who can act as Karta or, where there are no males at all, there is no legal bar to a female representing a family as its manager. The position, admittedly is different here and therefore Sanu was the Karta or the manager of the family. The power of a managing member of a Joint Family to alienate family property is subject to certain restrictions. The power of alienation is confined, according to Mitakshara law to be exercised for any or all of three purposes, that is, (i) in the time of distress ; (ii) for the sake or benefit of the family ; and (iii) for pious purposes. The Sanskrit meaning of the terms "apatkale", "kutumbarthe" and "dharmarthe" as applicable to these three categories is explained by the Mitakshara. "Time of distress" refers to a distress which effects the whole family "for the sake of the family" means for its maintenance, and "pious purposes" are described as indispensable acts of duty such as the obsequies of the ancestors. It has been held that the explanation of the text of Brihaspati by Mitakshara is by no means to be considered as exhaustive, and may be treated as illustrative, and interpreted with due regard to the conditions of modern life. (See Ragho v. Zaga: (1929) 53 Bombay 251). In the illustrated Hunooman Persaud v. Mussumat Babooee's case: (1856) 6 M.I.A. 393, the Privy Council elaborately dealt with the power of a manager of the Hindu Family, and this case is always held to be 'an authority on the subject. The Court Held as follows: The power of the Manager for an infant heir to charge an estate not his own, is, under the Hindu Law, a limited and qualified power. It can only be exercised rightly in a case of need, or for the benefit of the estate. The Court Held as follows: The power of the Manager for an infant heir to charge an estate not his own, is, under the Hindu Law, a limited and qualified power. It can only be exercised rightly in a case of need, or for the benefit of the estate. Their Lordships think that the lender is bound to enquire into the necessities for the loan, and to satisfy himself as well as he can, with reference to the parties with whom he is dealing, that the manager is acting in the particular instance for the benefit of the estate. But they think that if he does so inquire and acts honestly, the real existence of an alleged sufficient and reasonably credited necessity is not a condition precedent to the validity of his charge, and they do not think that, under such circumstances, he is bound to see to the application of the money. The rule as to benefit of family as laid down in Hunooman Persaud's case (supra) has been statutorily embodied, in Section 38 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Though Hunooman Persaud's case (supra) was one of mortgage, yet the principle is also applicable to sale. The Privy Council in Krishna Das v. Nathu Ram: (1926) 54 1. All. 79, held that where 'a sale has been held to be justified, but there is no evidence as to the application of a portion of the consideration, a presumption arises that it has been expended for proper purposes, and for the benefit of the family. What is legal necessity is a question of fact in each case, and it is not to be understood in the sense of what is absolutely indispensable, but according to the notions of a Hindu Family can be reasonable and proper. (See (1911) 34 Mad. 422: (Kameswara Sastri v. Veercharlu). Whenever an alienation by the manager is impeached, the burden lies on the alienee, or any person claiming the benefit of the alienation in question, to prove that it was made, in case of need, or for the benefit of the estate, as the case may be. In other words, the alienees deal with the manager and the joint family property at their own risk. This rule proceeds upon the principle that whoever deals with a person with a limited power of disposition, must do, so at his own risk. In other words, the alienees deal with the manager and the joint family property at their own risk. This rule proceeds upon the principle that whoever deals with a person with a limited power of disposition, must do, so at his own risk. (See Hira Lal and Others Vs. Puran Chand and Others, : Him Lal v. Puran Chand and 133 (1967) C.L.T. 628: ( Durga Prasad Bhagat v. Marchhia Bewa). The alienee must prove either that a legal necessity or benefit of the estate in fact existed or that he had made proper, reasonable and bona fide enquiry as to the existence of such necessity or benefit. The alienee is not bound to prove the actual application of the consideration. (See Radhakrishnadas Vs. Kaluram, ). As observed in the said case, if the alienation itself is justified, that is, where it is either proved that there was in fact a case of necessity or benefit of the estate, or there was a bona fide enquiry on the part of the alienee as to the existence of such necessity or benefit of the estate, then the alienation is upheld to the whole extent and unconditionally irrespective of the question whether the part not proved to have been applied is considerable or small. Where the alienation itself is not justified, that is, where it is neither proved that there was in fact a case of necessity or benefit of the estate nor that there was a bona fide enquiry on the part of the alienee as to its existence, then the alienation can be upheld only to the extent of the amount proved to have been applied. The reason is that in one case the alienee is not bound to see to the application and having proved that the alienation is justified, the alienation must be upheld unconditionally and wholly. In the other case, it is a case of partial necessity, since the alienation has not been proved to be justified in one of the two ways, i. e., actual necessity or what is just as good evidence, bona fide enquiry as to its existence. 5. Judged in this background, it is seen that there is sufficient material to show that at least a sum of Rs. 400/- out of the consideration of Rs. 700/- was spent for obsequies of Dhanmat. 5. Judged in this background, it is seen that there is sufficient material to show that at least a sum of Rs. 400/- out of the consideration of Rs. 700/- was spent for obsequies of Dhanmat. There is also material to show that a portion of the consideration was utilised for repayment of loans and household expenses. In this connection, the deposition of Anjana before the Tahasildar in the mutation case (marked as Ext. E) is relevent. The evidence of Bishnu also reveals that he made enquiries about the loans incurred by Sanu from one Purna Banwari. Great stress has been laid on the statement of Bishnu before the Tahasildar about his lack of knowledge regarding persons from whom Sanu had incurred loans, and his admission that he did not ask about that aspect. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the evidence of Anjana, the mother of Sanu about the need for sale and the utilisation of the consideration, I do not think it is a case where inference can be drawn that the sale was without legal necessity or was not intended for the benefit of the family. In that view of the matter, the decision of this Court in Nanda Das's case (supra) is hardly of any assistance to the Appellants. In the said case I find that general principles relating to lack of bona fide enquiry were indicated and the decision revolved round the facts of that particular case. I find no infirmity or fallacy in the conclusions arrived at by' the learned Subordinate Judge to warrant any interference in this appeal. The inevitable result is dismissal of the appeal which I direct but in the peculiar circumstances without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed