Judgment : The plaintiff is the appellant.Though her suit O.S.No.9 of l976 on the file of the District Munsif, Cheyyar was decreed, the decree was reversed by the Subordinate Judge, Vellore in A.S.No.40 of 1978,. preferred by the defendants and the suit was dismissed. 2. The plaintiff claimed title to the suit properties basing on Ex.A-1, the registered settlement deed, dated 8. 1951, executed by Munusamy Naidu, the father of the plaintiff, covering all the three items of the suit properties. No doubt, on the date of Ex.A-1, the plaintiff was not alive, she having been born on 2S.8.1955. But the relevant recital in Ex.A-1 is as follows: (i.e. Munusamy Naidu and his wife) So, according to the plaintiff under Ex.A-1 life interest in the suit properties has been given to the settlor’s wife and the settlor himself and after their lifetime, their children to be born are to get the vested interest in those properties. No doubt, there was another elder brother of the plaintiff. But, it appears that he had died in the year 1953 itself. So, according to the plaintiff she is the only surviving child of her abovesaid parents and the said parents having already died the plaintiff alone is entitled to the suit properties. As per Ex.A-3, the mother of the plaintiff died on 11. 1957 and it appears that subsequently, her father also died. 3. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that the mother of the plaintiff had executed a registered sale deed under Ex.B-1, dated 18. 1956, in favour of both the defendants, in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties that the father of the plaintiff had executed another sale deed Ex.B-6, dated 13. 1959 in respect of the third item of the suit properties, in favour of the 2nd defendant and that thus the defendants derived their respective title to the suit items. In both Exs.B-1 and B-6, the plaintiff who was a minor on the relevant dates of the execution of these documents, also figured as one of the executants and it is also recited in Exs.B-1 and B-6 that the respective sales under these documents had been made because of the family necessity and for family benefit. So, according to the defendants, Exs.B-1 and B-6 are valid. So, according to the defendants, Exs.B-1 and B-6 are valid. Further, the father and mother of the plain- tiff had also earlier executed two mortgage deeds, Exs.B-2 and B-3 in the years 1953 and 1954 and, according to the defendants, in order to discharge the said mortgage debts, they had executed Exs.B-1 and B-6. .4. Learned counsel for the appellant made two submissions attacking the judgment of the lower appellate court. Initially he submitted that the lower appellate court had erred, while interpreting the abovesaid recital found in Ex.A-1 in holding that the plaintiff’s parents had right to alienate the property under Ex.A-1. According to the said learned counsel, only life interest has been given to the plaintiffs parents under Ex.A-1 in respect of the suit properties. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower appellate court has unnecessarily taken into consideration the question of family benefit or family necessity to uphold the abovesaid Exs.B-1 and B-6sale deeds. According to him, the suit properties were the exclusive properties of the plaintiff and they were not the family properties of the family of the plaintiff and her father. Only in the case of alienation of family properties the question of family benefit or family necessity would arise and, therefore, the learned counsel contends that the lower appellate court has taken an extraneous consideration to decide the mailer. Further, he would also contend that there is a specific provision under Sec.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardians Act, wherein it is stated that a minor’s property has to be alienated only with the previous permission of the Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the interpretation made by the lower appellate court on the abovesaid recitals in Ex.A-1 is perfectly correct and the parents of the plaintiff have been given right to alienate the properties under Ex.A-1. Further, according to the learned counsel, the plaintiff, who was a minor at the time of execution of Exs.B-1 and B-6 has also been a party in these documents and only because the power of alienation has been given under Exs.B-1 and B-6, the parents of the plaintiff had together executed the abovesaid Exs.B-2 and B-3 mortgage deeds. .6. I have considered the rival submissions. I shall first take up the question of interpretation of the abovesaid recitals found in Ex.A-1. .6. I have considered the rival submissions. I shall first take up the question of interpretation of the abovesaid recitals found in Ex.A-1. The initial portion of the abovesaid recitals specifically says as follows: This shows that the parents of the plaintiff could only enjoy the usufructs from the suit properties and that they do not get any other right in the properties. Particularly when the settlor has stated that they should enjoy only/the usufructs of the properties and after their lifetime the properties shall go to their children, it is clear that no power of alienation has been given to the parents of the plaintiff under Ex.A-1. Even assuming that such power has been given under Ex.A-1 it is clear according to the recitals referred to above that only with the consent of each other they could alienate the properties. Admittedly, in the present case, Ex.B-1 has been executed only by the mother of the plaintiff and not by her father. Likewise, Ex.B-6 has been executed by the father of the plaintiff and not by her mother. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also could not bring to my notice any evidence showing that the mother of the plaintiff obtained her husbands consent to alienate the properties under Ex.B-1 and vice versa in the case of Ex.B-6. Therefore, both Exs.B-1 and B-6 in my view, are not valid. .7. Further, on the second question, it is quite clear that the suit properties are not the joint family properties of the family of the plaintiff and her father. Under, Ex.A-1, the plaintiff has got absolute interest in the properties, after the lifetime of her parents. Therefore, it has to be held that these properties are her own exclusive properties and in such circumstances the existence of family benefit or family necessity, even assuming cannot validate Exs.B-1 and B-6. Further, pursuant to Sec.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, without the prior permission of the court, the minor’s property cannot be sold away by the parents. 8. Therefore, for all these reasons, it is clear that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court suffer from substantial error of law and therefore they are set aside and the decree and judgment of the trial court and restored. This second appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.