Judgment :- The petitioner is the mother of minor kondappan. Her husband Pazhanisamy is no more. The minor son is aged 16 years. On 212. 1993, the parents of the petitioner bequeathed the schedule mentioned property in favour of minor Kondappan and vested life interest on their daughter, the petitioner herein. The learned District Judge has examined one of the attestors by name, Sitaraman and hence, execution of the will was proved. It is provided in the will that the petitioner herein has to enjoy the property till her life-time with power of alienation and after her life-time, the minor Kondappan shall take the property absolutely with all powers of alienation. With this stipulation in the will, the learned District Judge has refused to grant permission to the petitioner to sell the property. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that her husband is no more. Further, she has no avocation or profession in order to get continuous income to maintain herself and her son and that the property would fetch an attractive price in the open market and that if the permission was granted, the petitioner would sell the property and deposit the proceeds in the Bank as per the direction of this Court and would take the interest for their maintenance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since both the parents of the petitioner died, presently, she has got life interest over the property and that the property is an unproductive one, not fetching any income, even though it is an agricultural land, for that, she is not able to manage the same and also not in a position to lease it to others, since the property could not be safeguarded and hence, the grant of permission to could not be safeguarded and hence, the grant of permission to alienate the property is very much essential. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on an earlier Division Bench decision of this court reported in AIR 1961 Madras 348 (S. Gopalakrishna vs. C.V.Krishna Iyer and another), wherein, the learned Judges have observed as under: “A guardian can sell the ward’s property for necessity or benefit and such benefit need not necessarily be of a defensive nature. In the case of an alienation for he benefit of the minor, pure and simple, it cannot be said that the guardia has no alternative, for he can retain the property. A power to sell for the benefit of the ward implies a discretion, discretion not merely to decide as to the form of alienation, e.g. Mortgage, lease or sale, but whether the alienation is at all to be made. For example, if the minor has an unproductive property and the guardian sells it with a view to purchase a productive one it cannot be said that the only course open to the guardian was to sell the property, but, yet, the alienation would be binding. The test in such cases is not that there should be no alternative, but that whether the act was one for the benefit of the minor in the known circumstances”. 4. In a subsequent decision of this court rendered by a single Judge reported in 1962 (1) MLJ 393 (Palani Pillai vs. Sengamalathachi and others), it is observed that the natural guardian of a Hindu minor no doubt occupies a fiduciary position. The duties of the guardian are in the nature of a sacred trust. So long as the guardian acts bona fide in the interests and for the welfare of the minor and the transaction on behalf of the minor result in benefit to the minor and so long as the transactions are free from any taint of fraud, malpractice, or abuse of power the yard-stick of a prudent man’s conduct in respect of his own property to test the validity of the guardian’s transactions can well be applied. Otherwise, no guardian can manage the estate of a minor effectively and efficiently. In page 395 of the judgment, is further held as follows: “The family arrangement or a compromise of claims against the estate cannot be worse than an alienation by a guardian on behalf of a minor. If the natural guardian of a Hindu minor can alienate the estate of the ward for purposes of necessity and benefit as has been recognized by a long course of decisions commencing from Hunoomanpersaud’s case, it stands to reason that the guardian can also bind the minor by a family arrangement provided such an arrangement is for his necessary or benefit”. 5. 5. Following the above said decisions of this court, as well as considering the circumstances prevailing in this matter, this court finds it just and necessary to grant permission to the petitioner to sell the property in the interest of her minor son. It is no doubt true that after attaining majority, the minor kondappan would take the property absolutely with all powers of alienation, but, presently the petitioner appears to be not in a position to manage the family and to maintain and educate her son in a decent manner. It may be observed here that the request of the petitioner for permission to alienate the property is for legal necessity and since she is the mother and natural guardian of the minor, no one can doubt the attitude of the petitioner in placing the said request before the court. 6. In the circumstances stated above, this court is of the opinion that permission has to be granted as requested by the petitioner. In the petition, the petitioner has undertaken that in case, if the court permits her to sell the property, she would deposit the sale proceeds in the name of her minor son. It is directed that the petitioner shall deposit the entire proceeds of the sale into the court and the same shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit Scheme in any of the Nationalised Banks and she is permitted to withdraw the interest once in three months for the maintenance of her son. With the above said observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.