JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - On April 2, 1955 Hari Chand sold the land in dispute. On December 23, 1964 the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for possession. The appellant alleged that he was a minor at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The sale was not an act of good management and it was not for necessity. He, therefore, prayed for the passing of a decree for possession by annulment of sale. On April 28, 1973 the trial Court decreed the suit. On defendants appeal, the lower appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court on the material issues and dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal. 2. Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that defendant Hari Chand could not have acted as the guardian of the plaintiff- appellant, as his mother was alive. Thus, the sale was void. It has been further contended that the sale was not an act of good management. 3. The claim made on behalf of the appellant has been controverted by the counsel for the respondents. 4. A few facts, on which there is no dispute, may be noticed. 5. It is the admitted position that the appellant is the son of Kura. It is admitted that the appellants father and Hari Chand were brothers. It is also not disputed that the property in dispute was jointly held by both of them. Still further, Hari Chand had not sold merely the share of the plaintiff- appellant but also his own holding. Still further, the mother of the appellant had not raised even a little finger to challenge the sale. She had not even appeared in the Court as a witness to even suggest that the sale was not an act of good management or that it was not for the benefit of the appellant. It also deserves mention that according to the evidence on record, the mother had herself started staying with Hari Chand. In the circumstances, it is not surprising that the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that Hari Chand was, in fact, the de facto guardian. The parties were staying together in the same house. Hari Chand was looking after the interests of the appellant. This aspect is further fortified by the fact that Hari Chand had gifted his own property to the appellant. The parties were staying together in the same house. Hari Chand was looking after the interests of the appellant. This aspect is further fortified by the fact that Hari Chand had gifted his own property to the appellant. Taking all these facts cumulatively, there appears to be no ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court that Hari Chand was the de facto guardian and that he was taking care of the whole family. 6. Was the sale an act of good management ? The evidence on record indicates that there was virtually no yield from the land. The land was in possession of persons other than the plaintiff or the defendant. There were efforts to assert hostile title. Part of the land was recorded as Charand, viz., the land for grazing the cattle. Still further in it is admitted by the counsel for the parties that the land was situated in Tehsil Kaithal while the parties were residing in a village in Tehsil Narwana. In mid fifties the roads and the means of transport were very different from those available today. Keeping these facts in view, I find no infirmity in the view taken by the trial Court that the sale of property was an act of good management. In fact, Hari Chand would not have sold his own share of the land unless he was convinced that it was necessary and proper to do so. Still further, the fact that he had gifted his own property to the appellant shows that he had no adverse interests against him. It may also be mentioned that the learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer to anything on the record to show that he had utilised the sale proceeds for his own benefit or that he had not actually passed on the sale proceeds to the appellant. 7. No other point has been raised. 8. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal. It is, consequently, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.