JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is plaintiff’s Second appeal. O.S. No. 241 of 1971 was instituted by the plaintiff for cancellation of sale-deed dated 28.5.1952. The suit was dismissed by IIIrd Additional Munsif, Deoria on 6.12.1973. Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1974 was also dismissed on 11.7.1975 by Civil Judge, Deoria, hence, this Second Appeal. Defendant respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Purshottam and Smt. Rajpati are father and mother of the plaintiff-appellant and defendant respondent No. 4 Dhruv Narain is his real brother. The immovable property in dispute belonged to plaintiff and defendant respondent No. 4. Their parents i.e. defendant Nos. 2 and 3 sold the property in dispute as their guardian on 28.5.1952 to defendant respondent No. 1 Smt. Chandrawati for Rs. 1943/- as on that date both of them were minors. Two years before i.e. on 14.4.1950 the said property had been purchased in the name of minors plaintiff and defendant No. 4 by their father and mother respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 3. The main ground of challenge to the sale-deed was that permission of the District Judge had not been obtained by the father and mother of the plaintiff, who was minor, for executing the sale-deed. Second, ground was that transaction was not for the benefit of the minors. The second point was rightly rejected on the ground that within two years property was sold for almost double of the initial purchase price. 4. As far as question of permission is concerned the purchaser defendant respondent No. 1 stated that the parents of plaintiff i.e. defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had intimated her that permission had been sought. However, no copy of the permission was filed. The trial Court held that plaintiff could not show that permission was not granted. Lower appellate Court agreed with the trial Court that permission was obtained. However, lower appellate Court, further held that under Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 permission was necessary. Lower appellate Court further held that plaintiff could summon the record regarding permission from the office of the District Judge but he did not do so. 5. In this case an application was filed on 14.2.2011 by learned counsel for the appellant stating the following two substantial questions of law on which appeal might be heard: 1. Lower appellate Court further held that plaintiff could summon the record regarding permission from the office of the District Judge but he did not do so. 5. In this case an application was filed on 14.2.2011 by learned counsel for the appellant stating the following two substantial questions of law on which appeal might be heard: 1. Whether without previous permission of District Court as required under Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 natural guardian has power to transfer the property of a minor? 2. Whether the plaintiff appellant having pleaded that no permission of District Judge was obtained the Court below illegally misplaced the burden of prove on the plaintiff appellant to prove by pursuing evidence, that no prior permission was obtained by District Judge by the natural guardian before transferring the property of minor? 6. As far as the second question of law is concerned it is to be decided in favour of plaintiff appellant. Defendant respondent No. 1 asserted that permission had been obtained hence burden to prove the said fact squarely lay upon her. A fact is to be proved by direct evidence. Permission of District Judge can be proved only by filing certified copy of the order which was not done. As far as proof of a negative thing is concerned simple statement is sufficient. Plaintiff apart from stating that no permission was sought could not be expected to adduce any further evidence in this regard. The view of the lower appellate Court that plaintiff should have summoned the records from the District Judge’s Court is not only illegal but utterly unwarranted. Neither the date of the order through which alleged permission was granted by the District Judge had been mentioned by the defendant No. 1 nor the number of the case had been mentioned. Plaintiff was not expected to make prayer for summoning of all the files of the Court of District Judge prior to the date of sale-deed in question regarding grant of such permissions. 7. However, decision of second question of law in favour of plaintiff appellant is not sufficient to decide the appeal in his favour. 8. The most crucial question of law is the first substantial question of law. 7. However, decision of second question of law in favour of plaintiff appellant is not sufficient to decide the appeal in his favour. 8. The most crucial question of law is the first substantial question of law. It is true that under Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 even natural guardian like father cannot sell immovable property of the minor without permission of the District Judge. However, the said Act was passed after four years of execution of the sale-deed in question. The sale-deed in question was executed in 1952 and the Act was passed in 1956 hence it had absolutely no application. It is not at all understandable as to why learned District Judge referred to Section 8 of the Act which was passed in 1956. 9. The situation was governed by Guardians and Ward Act 1890. Section 29 of the said Act is quoted below: 29. Limitation of powers of guardian of property appointed or declared by the Court. Where a person other than a Collector, or than a guardian appointed by will or other instrument, has been appointed or declared by the Court to be guardian of the property of a ward, he shall not, without the previous permission of the Court,— (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of his ward, or (b) lease any part of that property for a term exceeding five years or for any term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the ward will cease to be a minor. 10. It is, therefore, clear that under the aforesaid Section there was absolutely no restriction upon natural guardian like father to transfer the property of minor unless he was also declared by the Court to be a guardian of the property of minor. 11. Accordingly, as there was absolutely no necessity for the father of the plaintiff to obtain permission of the District Judge before transferring the property of the appellant even though he was minor on the date of sale i.e. 28.5.1952. 12. In view of above there was absolutely no fault in the sale-deed dated 28.5.1952 and it could not be set aside. Second appeal is therefore dismissed. —————