JUDGMENT : Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil second appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgement and decree dated 6.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Kota (for brevity-"the learned appellate court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.38/2006 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgement and decree dated 26.7.2006 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Kota (for brevity-"the learned trial court") dismissing the Civil Suit No.30/1998 filed for declaration and possession of the suit shop, has been affirmed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents/defendants (for brevity-`the defendants') stating therein that in a joint hindu family property comprising of a house with three shops situated in Agrasen Bazar, Purani Dhan Mandi, Kota as described in para no.1 of the plaint, he acquired co-ownership along with his mother and two siblings after the death of his father in the year 1980. It was alleged that without any legal necessity or without seeking prior permission of the Court, his mother, the defendant no.3, sold a shop, a part of joint hindu family property, in favour of respondents no.1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dated 8.9.1987 which was void ab initio. It was therefore prayed that the sale deed dated 8.9.1987 be declared null and void against his rights and possession of the suit shop be restored to him. The defendants no.1, 2 and 6 stated in their joint written statement that plaintiff's mother has sold the subject shop for family necessity in her capacity as natural guardian of the plaintiff and her two other children as they all were minor at the relevant time. It was averred that financial condition of Shri Shanti Lal, late father of the plaintiff, was not healthy and he died leaving behind a huge debt which was paid by the defendant no.3 and to meet day to day requirement of the family, the subject shop was sold by her. 3. The defendants no.7 and 8 stated in their joint written statement that they have purchased the suit shop from the defendants no.1 and 2 bonafidely without being aware of the pendency of the suit. 3. The defendants no.7 and 8 stated in their joint written statement that they have purchased the suit shop from the defendants no.1 and 2 bonafidely without being aware of the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff in his rejoinder to the written statement filed by the respondents no.7 and 8, averred that since they have purchased the suit shop despite intimation by him of the stay order by the learned trial court, they were not bonafide purchaser. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed eight issues. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit vide its judgement and decree dated 26.7.2006 which has been affirmed and upheld by the learned appellate court vide its judgement and decree dated 6.12.2016. 5. Assailing the impugned judgement and decree, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that he acquired an interest in the subject property along with his mother and siblings after the death of his father and at the relevant time when the registered sale deed dated 8.9.1987 was executed by his mother in favour of the defendants no.1 and 2, he being minor, in absence of prior permission from the competent court, the sale deed was null and void. He further submits that even if it is assumed that the respondent no.3 executed the subject sale deed being Karta of the HUF, the defendants have failed to establish that it was for legal necessity. He further submitted that the defendants no.1 and 2, the purchaser under the sale deed dated 8.9.1987, did not appear in the witness box and the defendant no.8, the subsequent purchaser, could not have established that the sale was for legal necessity. He, therefore, prays that the second appeal be allowed, the judgement and decree dated 6.12.2016 be quashed and the suit filed by him be decreed. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. Shri Shanti Lal, father of the plaintiff died in the year 1980 leaving behind a residential house along with three shops with his wife and three minor children; the plaintiff aged about 5 years, the defendant no.5, the daughter aged about 7 years and the defendant no.4, another son aged about 3 years, as its co-owners. 6. Heard. Considered. 7. Shri Shanti Lal, father of the plaintiff died in the year 1980 leaving behind a residential house along with three shops with his wife and three minor children; the plaintiff aged about 5 years, the defendant no.5, the daughter aged about 7 years and the defendant no.4, another son aged about 3 years, as its co-owners. It is revealed from the testimony of the plaintiff (PW1) and his witness Shri Sneh Kumar (PW2) that at the time of death of Shri Shanti Lal, his financial condition was very poor and he left behind a huge debt which was paid by the defendant no.3. It is also revealed from their testimony that although, it is mentioned in the subject sale deed that the debt was paid before its execution; but, a litigation with regard to the shops was pending in between her and the tenants. Taking into consideration this testimony as also the Ex.A2, the statement of defendant no.3 dated 4.8.1986 made in the civil suit no.33/1984 filed by her against the tenants in the shops including the subject property, the contents of Ex.1, the subject sale deed dated 8.9.1987, the learned trial court has recorded a categorical finding that the sale deed was executed by the defendant no.3 for family necessity as she had no source of income except rental income which was very meager to take care of education and other day to day needs of her three minor children. It has also been held that although, it is claimed in the plaint that the property was sold by plaintiff's mother without any legal necessity to fulfill her unjustified desires; but, the plaintiff has admitted during his cross examination that they all were living together in the house left behind by his father, his mother was leading a simple and not extravagant or luxurious life and had taken good care of the children's education and upbringing. The aforesaid findings of the learned trial court have been upheld by the learned appellate court. 8. This Court, upon examining the oral as also documentary evidence available on record, finds that the subject sale deed was executed by the defendant no.3 on her behalf and as natural guardian of her minor children including the plaintiff and not as Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. 8. This Court, upon examining the oral as also documentary evidence available on record, finds that the subject sale deed was executed by the defendant no.3 on her behalf and as natural guardian of her minor children including the plaintiff and not as Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. Further, her statement dated 4.8.1986 in the civil suit no.33/1984 (Ex.A2) reveals that despite repayment of entire debt left by her late husband, she was facing great financial difficulty in sustaining the family. From the conspectus of the aforesaid evidence and the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned appellate court as also by the learned trial court, this Court is satisfied that the subject sale deed came to be executed by mother of the plaintiff for family necessity and not to fulfill her unjustified or unworthy desire for which no prior permission under section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for brevity-`the Act') was required. 9. A coordinate bench of this Court has, in the case of Girdhar Singh and Anr. v. Anand Singh and Ors.-AIR 1982 Rajasthan 229 wherein, the validity of the sale deed executed of the Joint Hindu Property Family by mother of the plaintiffs during their minority after the death of their father on the premise of it being for legal necessity, was under challenge alleging that it was without any legal necessity and no permission was sought from the competent court under Section 8 of the Act, it was held as under: "10.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is thus proved from the evidence of Chhatra Kanwar herself and corroborated by recital in Ex.1 that the money was needed for the maintenance of her own children and for their education and for the benefit of the family. This sale deed was registered on 25-4-60 and agricultural land for an amount of Rs. 1,950 was purchased vide sale deed Ex. Al on 26-6-61. According to the statement of Chhatra Kanwar, Nand Singh had left 200 bighas of land, out of which only 51 bighas and 14 biswas was sold at Phuleta and 25 bighas and 5 biswas of agricultural land was purchased at village Sirash by registered sale deed Ex. A-l dated 26-6-61 and in these circumstances, I see no reason to hold that the alleged transaction of sale was made without any legal necessity. A-l dated 26-6-61 and in these circumstances, I see no reason to hold that the alleged transaction of sale was made without any legal necessity. The learned lower Appellate Court has also held that the sale in question was made for the maintenance of the plaintiffs and for the benefit of the family and this proved the legal necessity for making alienation. 12. As regards the question of taking permission from a competent court of law in this case, I am in agreement with the view taken in Sunamani Dei v. Babaji Das AIR 1974 Orissa 184 that when the minor and his mother constitute a Hindu joint family, each with a moiety of undivided interest in any immovable property belonging to the family, in the absence of the father, the mother as natural guardian, can alienate even the minor's half share in the immovable property under the personal law. section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act will not apply to such alienation. This view finds support from Smt. Suga Bai v. Hira Lal Para 32 (supra) referred to above. No other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants." 10. The aforesaid dictum applies squarely to the facts of the present case. 11. There is another important aspect of the matter. While deciding the issue no.1, the learned trial court has, on the basis of evidence on record, held that the suit was collusive inasmuch as while, in the plaint the plaintiff has come out with a specific case that transfer was made by his mother for fulfillment of her unjustified demand; but, from his cross examination, it was reflected that he was living with his mother and entire family happily and did not want partition of the property left behind his father, he has further admitted that his mother has taken good care of all the three minor children including plaintiff and she was living a simple life and the averments have been corroborated by Shri Sneh Kumar (PW2). It has also been observed by the learned trial court that although, the mother and siblings were impleaded as defendants no.3 to 5; but, they did not choose to contest the matter. This Court is in agreement with the findings so recorded and holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief on this count also. 12. It has also been observed by the learned trial court that although, the mother and siblings were impleaded as defendants no.3 to 5; but, they did not choose to contest the matter. This Court is in agreement with the findings so recorded and holds that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief on this count also. 12. This Court does not find the concurrent findings of facts to be suffering from any perversity or the civil second appeal to be involving any substantial question of law. 13. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.