Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. Respondent-plaintiff, Balbir Singh filed suit for possession of 1/6th share of the property described in the plaint by questioning sale deed dated 26.4.1956 on the ground that the plaintiff was minor on the date of sale and was not bound by the sale deed. 2. The suit was contested on the ground that the property was sold by Karta of the joint family as an act of good management, which was binding on the plaintiff. 3. The trial court dismissed the suit. It was held that the suit property was ancestral property in which the, plaintiff had a right. In the sale deed Ex.D.1, the plaintiff was mentioned as minor. Plea that sale was for the benefit of the minor and for the benefit of the estate, was upheld. 4. On appeal, findings of the trial court have been reversed. Finding of the trial court on the question that sale was for the benefit of the minor and for the benefit of the estate has been reversed. In para 13, it has been observed that about 300 bighas of land was sold under the impugned sale in which the plaintiffs share was about 50 bighas. Recitals in the sale deed that land was being sold for discharge of debt, installation of tubewell, redemption of land, education and bringing up of the plaintiff, were not proved. Three transactions of purchase of land Exhibits DW3/1, DW3/2 and DW3/3 were for a total consideration of Rs. 33,500/- only. In para 14, it was observed that the plaintiff was not proved to owe any debt; the plaintiff had already left studies much earlier. There was no evidence that tubewell was required to be or was installed. As regards purchase in Pilibhit, it was observed that DW-3 Hardwar Gupta examined by the defendants had no personal knowledge regarding the transactions and no attempt was made to identify the persons who were vendees. Certified copies of the sale deed were not produced. The plaintiff or the other vendees had not shifted to Pilibhit. There was no evidence of spending of substantial amount on the plaintiff after the sale, the Trial court wrongly observed that much larger area was purchased as compared to the area sold. 5. Certified copies of the sale deed were not produced. The plaintiff or the other vendees had not shifted to Pilibhit. There was no evidence of spending of substantial amount on the plaintiff after the sale, the Trial court wrongly observed that much larger area was purchased as compared to the area sold. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that sale by a natural guardian is voidable and unless sale deed is challenged, the suit of the plaintiff could not be decreed. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Vishwambhar and Ors. v. Laxminarayan (Dead) through LRs and Anr., (2001)6 S.C.C. 163 in this regard. He further submitted that a Karta could legally dispose of the suit property without permission of the court and the minor could not question the same. He relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2371, Divya Dip Singh and Ors. v. Ram Bachan Mishra and Ors., A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1465 and Bara Singh v. Kashmira Singh and Ors., J.T. 1990(3) S.C. 843. He then submitted that the alienee need not prove as to how consideration money was applied, as held by the Apex Court in Radhakrishnadas and Anr. v. Kaluram (dead) and after him his LRs, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 574 and by a Division Bench of this Court in Shankarlal and Ors. v. Lakhbir Singh and Ors., (1968)70 P.L.R. 26. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the vendors were neither natural guardians nor Karta and the plaintiff has filed cross objections questioning the finding to the effect that the sale was by Karta. In any case, finding recorded by the lower appellate court that sale was without legal necessity, was a finding of fact. She relied upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Badri Singh v. Ram Sanjivani 1982 Allahabad Law Journal 1257 to submit that transfer of share of minor by major brothers acting as de-facto guardians, was void. She also referred to the sale deed in which the vendors are described as guardians and not as Karta. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Rajalakshmi and Ors. v. Minor Ramachandran and Anr., A.I.R. 1967 Madras 113 that sale of property of minor by a person other than natural, testamentary guardian or guardian appointed by Court, was void. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Rajalakshmi and Ors. v. Minor Ramachandran and Anr., A.I.R. 1967 Madras 113 that sale of property of minor by a person other than natural, testamentary guardian or guardian appointed by Court, was void. Reliance has been then placed on a judgment of Division Bench of the Calcutta High court in Hari Satya Banerjee and Ors. v. Mahadev Banerjee and Ors.? A.I.R. 1983 Calcutta 1976, holding that transfer of minors property by de facto guardian is void and in such a case, a minor need not seek judicial revision of transfer. Reference was then made to a judgment of the Kerala High Court in Iruppakkatt Veettil Vishwanathans wife Santha v. Deceased Kandans LRs wife Cherukutty and Ors., A.I.R. 1972 Kerala 71 to the effect that transfer of minors property by natural guardian was void and the minor could avoid the same without filing any suit. Reliance was placed lastly on a judgment of the Apex Court in Panni Lal v. Rajinder Singh, 1993(3) R.R.R. 243 that in absence of proof of legal necessity or benefit of the minor, sale affected without permission of the Court will be void. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. The lower appellate Court has proceeded on the assumption that alienation by a Karta of the property of the minor was valid if the same was for legal necessity. It was, however, held that sale in the present case was not for legal necessity. I have perused the reasons given by the lower appellate Court in paras 14 to 16. The said reasons are based on appreciation of evidence. The lower appellate Court concluded that sale was not for legal necessity, this conclusion cannot be held to be perverse. Once this conclusion is held not to be liable to be interfered with, question whether the lower appellate Court was justified in proceeding with the assumption that vendor was the Karta, need not be examined. If the sale is held to be without legal necessity, the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are distinguishable. Vishwambhar (supra) relates to alienation by a natural guardian which is not the case here. If the sale is held to be without legal necessity, the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are distinguishable. Vishwambhar (supra) relates to alienation by a natural guardian which is not the case here. As regards the judgments relating to alienation by Karta, the same could help the appellants only if the sale was for legal necessity. The judgments taking the view that alienee need not prove as to how consideration money could apply, also do not apply as in the present case, the appellants have been nonsuited on the ground that legal necessity was not established. 9. Only other contention remains to be dealt with is that decree could not be for actual possession but could only be for the share of the minor. From para 18 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it is clear that decree is not for any specific area but for the share of the minor. The same does not call for any interference. It has been made clear that vendee-defendants could take their remedies against defendant Nos. 18 to 22-vendors. 10. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. 11. The appeal is dismissed.