J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by she learned District Judge Kheda at Nadiad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1978 on 30/11/1979. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the alienation made by the `manager of the joint family in favour of re- spondents No. 2 3 and 4/original defendants No. 2 3 and 4 was not legal and proper. In order to appreciate this contention it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts and circumstances giving rise to the present appeal. ( 3 ) THE present appellants are the original plaintiffs who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 24 of 1974 for declaration and possession in respect of agricultural property bearing Revenue Survey No. 92 admeasuring 2 acres and 30 gunthas (hereinafter referred to as `the suit property ). The plaintiffs contended that the sale deed in respect of the suit property executed by respondent No. 1/ original defendant No. 1 in favour of respondents No. 2 3 and 4/original defendants No. 2 3 and 4 was not legal. According to the appellants the sale deed was executed by respondent No. 1 in collusion with respondents No. 2 3 and 4 and they did not receive any consideration out of the said transaction. It was further contended that all other ancestral properties except the suit prop- erty had been divided long before and respondent No. 1 had no authority to alienate the share of the plaintiffs. Therefore the suit was filed for possession and for setting aside the sale deed. The sale deed was executed by respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit property on 15/05/1964 produced at Ex. 62 respondent No. 1/original defendant No. 1 appeared and supported the case of the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 2 3 and 4 appeared and filed a separate written statement and resisted the suit of the plaintiffs. Respondent No. 5/original defendant No. 5 did not contest the suit. ( 4 ) ON appreciation of the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence the trial court was pleased to find that the suit property was undi- vided joint family property between the appellants and respondent No. 1 and 5. Respondent No. 5/original defendant No. 5 did not contest the suit. ( 4 ) ON appreciation of the evidence on record and considering the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence the trial court was pleased to find that the suit property was undi- vided joint family property between the appellants and respondent No. 1 and 5. The trial court was also pleased to hold that respondent No. 1/ original defendant No. 1 was also a `manager of the joint family and therefore a `karta in respect of the property belonging to the joint family. Therefore he was entitled to alienate the join family property. It was also found by the learned trial Judge that the alienation made by respondent No. 2 in respect of the joint family property was for legal necessity in the interest of minor. The suit was therefore dismissed. ( 5 ) THE plaintiffs being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 65 of 1978 before the District Court. The learned District Judge of Kheda at Nadiad was pleased to dismiss the appeal Hence this Second Appeal. ( 6 ) THE contention that both the courts below have wrongly assumed that it was an admitted fact that the suit properly belonged to join family and respondent No. 1 was `karta thereof prima facie would appear to be attractive but not acceptable in view of the facts and circum- stances of the case and on a plain perusal of the averments made in the plaint. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the finding arrived at by both the courts below that aliena- tion made by respondent No. 1/original defendant No. 1 was in capacity of `karta and `manager of the joint Hindu family and for legal necessity deserves no interference. In fact the finding that the alienation was made for legal necessity of the family is not disputed. The only dispute which is raised before this court in this appeal is that there was no joint Hindu family as such and the property was not ancestral properly. Therefore the alienation made by respondent No. 1/original defendant No. 1 was not legal and proper. This contention is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the light of the evidence on record. Therefore the alienation made by respondent No. 1/original defendant No. 1 was not legal and proper. This contention is not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the light of the evidence on record. The appellants herein/ original plaintiffs have categorically staled in the plaint that the suit property which is undi- vided ancestral property of the joint family was managed by respondent No. 1/orignal defendant No. 1 being the eldest male member of the family. A person who is acting as `manager of the joint Hindu family is popularly knwon as `karta. The `karta is entitled to alienate properly of the joint Hindu family for legal necessity and in the interest of minors. In the facts and circum- stances or the case the alienation made by respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1 is quite legal and valid as it was designed to meet with the legal necessities and in the interest of minors in the family. ( 7 ) INCIDENTALLY it may be mentioned that it was contended that the sale deed Ex. 62 dated 15/05/1964 was executed by respondent No. 1 in his personal capacity as well as the guardian of minor Narsinhbhai Chhotabhai Patel appellant No. 1 plaintiff No. 1 and not as `karta or `manager of the joint family. It is also pointed out that the revenue record was also standing in the name of respondent No. 1 in his personal capacity as well as the guardian of the said minor. Relying on this aspect it is contended that the suit property was a joint property between two brothers i. e. respondent No. 1 (Dahyabhai) and appellant No. 1 (Narsinhbhai) and therefore alienation made by and on behalf of the minor as his guardian was not proper and legal. It is true that sale deed was executed by respondent No. 1 in his personal capacity as well as guardian of minor Narsinhbhai. Nonetheless reading the entire sale deed and the undisputed fact that he was working as a `manager it cannot be contended that there was joint ownership and the property was not ancestral properly. In view of the evidence on record the suit property was ancestral joint Hindu family property and it was managed by respondent No. 1 as `manager and `karta of the said joint family. In view of the evidence on record the suit property was ancestral joint Hindu family property and it was managed by respondent No. 1 as `manager and `karta of the said joint family. Therefore he was competent and authorised to enter into transaction in respect of the disputed properly for legal necessities and in the interest of mi- nors. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case the contentions raised challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained. There is no any justification whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court judge in Regular Civil Suit No. 24 of 1974 and continued in Regular Civil Appeal No. 65 or 1978. There is no merit in the present appeal. Therefore it is requird to be dismissed. ( 9 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the present case the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. .