JUDGMENT 1. Appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S No.300/1995 of the Munsiff’s Court, Kodungalloor. The plaintiffs are brothers. They challenge the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissing their suit. 2. The suit was originally filed against three defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the 1 st defendant died, and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional defendants 4 to 11. The suit was filed for declaring that Ext.B2 Sale deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs on behalf of them during their minority with respect to B schedule Item No.1 property having an extent of 55 ¼ cents in favour of the 1 st defendant and Ext.B3 Sale deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs on behalf of them during their minority, with respect to Plaint B schedule Item No.2 property having an extent of 6.37 cents in favour of the 2 nd defendant, Ext.B4 and B5 documents executed by the 1 st and 2 nd defendants with respect to those properties in favour of the 3 rd defendant are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and the plaint Schedule properties; for consequential relief of setting aside the said documents; for allowing recovery of possession of Plaint B schedule properties from the 3 rd defendant on the strength of title with mesne profits. Plaint B Schedule Item Nos 1 and 2 properties are parts of Plaint A schedule property having an extent of 2 acres 15 cents obtained by the plaintiffs represented by their father Antony as their natural guardian as per Ext.A1 Sale deed of the year 1979 during their minority. As per the plaint allegations on the basis of Ext B4 and B5 sale deeds executed by defendants 1 and 2, the plaint B schedule properties are in possession and enjoyment of the 3 rd defendant; the plaintiffs did not enjoy the consideration of the above sale deeds; the father of the plaintiffs did not obtain sanction from the District court Thrissur for Ext.B2 and B3 alienations. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint Written Statement, and the 3 rd defendant filed a separate Written Statement opposing the suit prayers. 3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint Written Statement, and the 3 rd defendant filed a separate Written Statement opposing the suit prayers. Defendants 1 to 3 admitted that the plaintiff derived the title of the plaint schedule property as per Ext.A1, that the father of the plaintiff transferred plaint B schedule properties in favour of defendants 1 and 2 as per Ext.B2 and B3 and that the 3 rd defendant purchased the Plaint B schedule properties from defendants 1 and 2 as per Ext.B4 and B5 Sale Deeds. According to them, Antony, father of the plaintiffs, transferred plaint B schedule properties in favour of defendants 1 and 2 for and on behalf of the plaintiffs upon valid consideration and in good faith. While executing those Sale deeds, Plaint B schedule properties were barren land without any cultivation and irrigation facilities. The plaintiffs did not obtain any usufructs from it. The father of the plaintiff did not have the financial capability to cultivate the said properties. Hence, the father of the plaintiff and relatives formed an opinion to purchase another cultivating land for the best interest of the minors. By using the sale consideration received from the 2 nd defendant as per Ext.B2, the father of the plaintiffs immediately purchased 1 acre 42 cents of paddy land for and on behalf of the plaintiffs from one Anandan through Ext.B1 sale deed using the sale consideration of Rs.8000 received from the 2 nd defendant. The sale consideration received from the 1 st defendant as per Ext.B3 was utilized for the educational expenses of the plaintiffs and their family expenses. Every guardian has the right to alienate the property of the minors for their benefit. The guardian need not approach the civil court for permission. 4. Originally from the side of the plaintiff, PWs 1 to 5 were examined, and Ext.A1 to A6 documents were marked, and from the side of the defendants, DW 1 was examined, and Exts. B1 to B8 were marked. The Commission Report and Rough Sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). 5. 4. Originally from the side of the plaintiff, PWs 1 to 5 were examined, and Ext.A1 to A6 documents were marked, and from the side of the defendants, DW 1 was examined, and Exts. B1 to B8 were marked. The Commission Report and Rough Sketch prepared by the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). 5. The Trial Court decreed the suit as per judgment and Decree dated 29.08.1998 declaring that Exts.B2 to B5 alienations are not valid and binding on the plaintiffs, cancelling them and directing the defendants to reconvey the Plaint B Schedule properties and to surrender possession of the same to the plaintiffs. The Trial Court found that the alienations made by the father of the plaintiffs during the minority of the plaintiffs are invalid for want of sanction under S.29 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890; that Ext.B2 and B3 sale deeds are void; and that the defendants are not entitled to claim value of improvements as they purchased the property with the knowledge that it belonged to the minors and that their father has no right to alienate the property. 6. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in A.S.No.163/2003 before the First Appellate Court, and the said appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 7. The defendants filed a Second Appeal in this court as R.S.A No.371/2004, and this Court, as per judgment dt 06.04.2011, allowed the Second Appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration before the Trial Court. 8. The decretal part of the judgment of this Court dt 06.04.2011 in RSA No.371/2004 is extracted below. “The appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment passed by the Munsiff court Kodungallur in OS 300/1995, as confirmed by the District Judge, Thrissur in AS 161/2003, is set aside. OS 300/1995 is remanded to the Munsiff Court Kodungallur for fresh disposal. Learned Munsiff to consider whether Ext.B2 and B3 alienations made by Antony, the natural guardian was as prudent man dealing with his own property and where for the necessity and benefit of the respondents and if not whether Ext.B2 and B3 and subsequent transactions are liable to be set aside. Learned Munsiff to consider whether Ext.B2 and B3 alienations made by Antony, the natural guardian was as prudent man dealing with his own property and where for the necessity and benefit of the respondents and if not whether Ext.B2 and B3 and subsequent transactions are liable to be set aside. If it is to be found that the alienations are liable to be set aside, appellants are entitled to the value of improvements, which shall be fixed by the learned Munsiff or left open to be decided in the execution proceedings. The learned Munsiff shall necessarily consider whether the respondents who claimed the benefit under Ext.B1 Sale Deed obtained by the natural guardian in their name utilizing the consideration received under Ext.B2, can avoid Ext.B2 assignment deed”. 9. This Court held that no permission under the Guardian and Wards Act is required for alienations by natural guardians, and hence Ext.B2 and B3 alienations are not bad for want of sanction. It is also held that if it is found that the alienations are not for the legal necessity and were not made as a prudent man and, therefore, are liable to be set aside, the defendants are definitely entitled to the value of improvements. 10. After remand, PW1 was examined further and Exts.A7 to A12 were marked. PW2 was further examined, and two other witnesses, PW6 and 7, were examined from the side of the plaintiffs. On the side of the defendant, DW1 was further examined, and Exts. B9 to B14 additional documents were marked. 11. The Trial Court dismissed the suit as per judgment dt. PW2 was further examined, and two other witnesses, PW6 and 7, were examined from the side of the plaintiffs. On the side of the defendant, DW1 was further examined, and Exts. B9 to B14 additional documents were marked. 11. The Trial Court dismissed the suit as per judgment dt. 31.01.2014 holding that the alienations made by the father of the plaintiffs as per Exts.B2 and B3 documents were not against the interest of the minors; that since the minors claimed right and title over the property covered by Ext.B1 and they obtained delivery of the property as per the proceedings in OS No.897/1997 instituted by them as revealed from Exts.B9 to B12, the plaintiffs virtually ratified the alienations made by their father under Ext.B2 and B3 Sale Deeds; that the plaintiffs are no adversely affected by the alienations of the properties by their father; that alienations as per Ext.B2 to B5 are for the benefit of the minors; that the plaintiffs who claimed benefit under Ext.B1 Sale Deed which was obtained by their father as natural guardian in their name by utilising the confirmation received under Ext.B2 cannot avoid Ext B2 assignment deed; that Ext.B2 to B5 transactions are binding on the plaintiffs ; that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover plaint B schedule properties from the 3 rd defendant; that the question of improvement does not arise since the right of the 3 rd respondent over the plaint B schedule properties is unaffected by the judgment and decree and that the suit is not barred by limitation as the suit was filed within three years from the dates of attaining majority by the plaintiffs. 12. The plaintiffs filed A.S. No.58/2014 before the First Appellate Court, and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as per judgment dt. 18.03.2019 with costs. 13. The plaintiffs have filed the present Regular Second Appeal seeking to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court, and to decree the suit as prayed for. 14. Since there was a delay in filing the Appeal, the respondents were given notice, and the 2 nd respondent appeared through Counsel. 14. Since there was a delay in filing the Appeal, the respondents were given notice, and the 2 nd respondent appeared through Counsel. After condoning the delay, the learned Single Judge of this Court found it better to consider the Appeal after calling for Trial Court records, and accordingly, the Trial Court and First Appellate Court records are available before this Court. 15. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri. K.B.Pradeep and the learned Senior Counsel for the 2 nd respondent, Sri. Renjith Thampan, instructed by Adv. Sri V.M Krishna Kumar. 16. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, did not consider whether the alienations were made by the father of the plaintiffs as per Ext.B2 and B3 in accordance with S 27 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. As per Section 27, the guardian has to do all acts which are reasonable and proper for the realization, protection, or benefit of the property. In order to sustain Ext.B2 and B3 alienations there should be specific findings that the alienations are made for the realization, protection, or benefit of the property of the minors. The learned Counsel further contended that as per S.64 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act, the plaintiffs are bound to restore the benefit derived by them when it is found that Ext.B2 and B3 sale deeds are void and OS No.897/1997 was filed to obtain Ext.B1 property in order to give back the advantages derived by them under Ext.B2. The learned counsel cited the decision of this Court in Susheela N and others v. R.S. Dilin and others, (2019) 2 KHC 364 in which it is held that when a document of alienation is put under challenge either by a minor or through his next friend, they are bound to return the benefit if any obtained under the said transaction. Learned Counsel contended that substantial questions of law are involved in the matter requiring admission and hearing of the Appeal. 17. Learned Counsel contended that substantial questions of law are involved in the matter requiring admission and hearing of the Appeal. 17. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the 2 nd respondent contended that the remand made by this Court as per judgment in R.S.A. No.371/2004 is a limited remand to consider whether Ext.B2 and B3 alienations made by the natural guardian were as a prudent man dealing with his own property and were for the necessity and benefit of respondents and if not whether Ext.B2 and B3 and subsequent transactions are liable to be set aside. The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, considered the issues directed to be considered by this Court in the remand order with reference to the pleadings and evidence in the case and arrived at the right conclusion that Ext.B2 and B3 and the subsequent transactions are not liable to be set aside. The findings of the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, are only findings of fact that could not be interfered with in a second appeal under S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned senior counsel cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thatchara Brothers and another v. M.K. Mary Mol and others, (1999) 1 SCC 298 and the decision of this Court in Soosa Anthony Decosta Nicholos Decosts v. Emakala Perumal Nadar Siva Subramonia Nadar, 1956 KLT 177 to substantiate the point that in the case of a Christian minor, the father is the natural guardian. Learned Senior Counsel cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal Goyenka v. Benoy Krishna Mukherjee and others, AIR 1953 SC 65 to substantiate the point that even erroneous decision on a question of law operates as resjudicata between the parties to it and hence the parties are bound by the remand order passed by this court in R.S.A No. 371/2004. Learned Senior Counsel cited the decision of the Madras High Court in Vemul Pallai Seetharamanna and others v. Maganti Appiah and another, AIR 1926 Madras 457 to substantiate the point that the alienation by defacto guardian even if for necessity of the minor is only voidable and therefore it can be ratified by the minor on attaining his age of majority. On the strength of the said decision, the learned Senior Counsel contended that the plaintiffs ratified Ext.B2 and B3 sale deeds executed by the natural guardian for and on behalf of them when they accepted Ext.B1 Sale Deed and obtained delivery of the said property after setting aside the Sale Deed by which Ext.B1 property was sold. The Regular Second appeal is liable to be dismissed in limine. 18. I have considered the rival contentions. 19. On going through the Remand Order of this Court in R.S.A.No.371/2004, it could be gathered that this Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court only for a limited purpose. This Court directed the Trial Court to consider whether Exts.B2 and B3 alienations made by the father of the plaintiffs were as a prudent man dealing with his own property and whether the said alienations were for the necessity and benefit of the plaintiffs. This refers to the duties of the father of the plaintiffs as a natural guardian mandated under Section 27 of the Guardian and Wards Act of 1890. Even though the question of the value of improvements made by the defendants was also remanded for consideration, it would arise only if it is found that Exts.B2 to B5 transactions are liable to be set aside. The further direction was to consider whether the plaintiffs who claimed benefit under Ext.B1 Sale Deed can avoid Ext.B2 Sale Deed. So, the principal question to be answered by the Trial court is whether the father of the plaintiffs had discharged his duties as provided under Section 27 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. 20. As per Section 27, a guardian of the property of a ward is bound to deal therewith as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with it, if it were his own and, subject to the provisions of this chapter, he may do all acts which are reasonable and proper for the realization, protection or benefit of the property. Guardian and Wards Act deals with three types of guardians - natural guardians, testamentary guardians, and court guardians. The term 'natural guardian' is not referred to in the Guardian and Wards Act. Section 4(2) defines ‘guardian’ as a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property, or both his person and property. Guardian and Wards Act deals with three types of guardians - natural guardians, testamentary guardians, and court guardians. The term 'natural guardian' is not referred to in the Guardian and Wards Act. Section 4(2) defines ‘guardian’ as a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property, or both his person and property. Court guardian is appointed under Section 7 of the said Act. A testamentary guardian is appointed by a Will or other instrument. Though the term 'natural guardian' is not referred to in the Guardian and Wards Act, natural guardian is also included in the definition of guardian. Chapter III deals with the duties, rights, and liabilities of guardians. Section 27 comes under the head ‘Guardian of property.’ It is of general application to all types of guardians. But in the case of a testamentary guardian, he has to exercise the power subject to the restriction imposed by the instrument. In the case of a court guardian, he has the power to make alienation only after getting previous permission of the court as required under Section 29. In the case of court guardian, the court shall permit alienation only in the case of necessity or for an evident advantage of the ward as required under Section 31. Section 29 is not applicable to natural guardians; hence, previous permission from the Court is not required for a natural guardian to sell a minor’s property. This issue is well settled in the Division Bench decision of Jince Mary Johns v. K.P Johny and another, 2011 (4) KHC 343 . Of course, the natural guardian is also bound to obtain previous permission in case he is declared a Court Guardian. It makes it clear that in the case of a natural guardian, the only check is whether he has discharged his duties under Section 27 while dealing with the property of the minors. In effect, the remand order of this Court is to verify whether the father of the plaintiffs had discharged his duties under Section 27 while making Exts.B2 and B3 alienations. 21. In effect, the remand order of this Court is to verify whether the father of the plaintiffs had discharged his duties under Section 27 while making Exts.B2 and B3 alienations. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant emphasized the words 'realization, protection or benefit of the property’ that occurred in Section 27 and advanced the argument that all the acts of the guardian should be ‘for the realization, protection or benefit of the property.’ The learned counsel contended that the benefit of the property means the benefit of the properties which are sold as per Exts.B2 and B3 by the father of the plaintiffs. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The realization, protection, or benefit of the property referred to in Section 27 is with respect to the entire property of the minor and not with reference to a particular property of the minor. The first part of the Section mandates that the guardian shall deal with the property of the minor as a man of ordinary prudence dealing with his own property. Sometimes, certain properties may not be useful or useful to the property owner and it is for the property owner to take a decision to purchase another property by alienating the former property. In such a case, the land owner would be selling his property and purchasing another property with the sale proceeds of the former property for the protection and benefit of his property. Likewise, in the case of minors' property also it is well within the powers of the natural guardian to sell the properties which are not useful or beneficial to the minor and purchase another property which is useful or beneficial to the minor using the sale proceeds of the minor's property. Hence, the substitution of immovable property of a minor for better advantage and use of the minor would come within the scope of 'protection or benefit of the property’ included in Section 27. It is true that neither the Trial Court nor the First Appellate Court has made a specific finding that the sale of Exts.B2 and B3 properties are for the protection or benefit of the property. Nevertheless, verbatim reproduction of the ingredients of the provision under Section 27 is not required while considering the question of compliance with Section 27 by the guardian. Nevertheless, verbatim reproduction of the ingredients of the provision under Section 27 is not required while considering the question of compliance with Section 27 by the guardian. The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, have extensively considered the question of compliance with Section 27 by the father of the plaintiffs as a natural guardian. 22. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents, it is a finding of fact, and this Court would not be justified in interfering with the said finding of fact in a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC unless there is perversity in such findings. 23. Admittedly, the father of the plaintiffs purchased 1 acre 42 cents of paddy land for the minors as per Ext.B1 Sale Deed by making a payment of Rs.8,000/- on the date of alienation of 55¼ cents of barren land belonged to the minors as per Ext.B2 Sale deed for a sale consideration of Rs.8,000/-. It is clear that the father of the plaintiffs purchased Ext.B1 property fully utilizing the sale consideration of Ext.B2 property. Though the plaintiffs contended that their father was a drunkard and had been leading a wayward life, the Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, found that the said contention was incorrect in view of the oral evidence adduced before it. The facts remain that he did not take any part of Ext.B2 sale consideration for him. It is admitted by PW 2, who is the mother of the plaintiffs, that during the time when Ext.B2 was sold, paddy land had more value than dry land. Admittedly, the property sold as per Ext.B2 is barren land. The plaintiffs do not have a case that income had been generated from it before Ext.B2. There is evidence on record that it is a barren land, and the improvements therein are made by the defendants. 24. With respect to Ext.B3 property, there are clear recitals in Ext.B3 that the sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- is already received by the father of the plaintiffs for meeting the educational expenses of the minors and to meet his family expenses. It is admitted by PW2 mother of the plaintiffs that the father of the plaintiffs had been meeting the educational expenses of the plaintiffs. 25. It is admitted by PW2 mother of the plaintiffs that the father of the plaintiffs had been meeting the educational expenses of the plaintiffs. 25. Though it is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs never enjoyed the consideration received from the above two transactions, there is no pleading in the plaint that the above transactions were made not for the benefit of the plaintiffs. 26. Admittedly, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.897/1997 before the Munsiff’s Court, Kodungallur, for avoiding the Sale Deed by which Ext.B1 property was sold by their father during their minority. The contention of the plaintiffs is that they instituted O.S.No.897/1997 for recovering Ext.B1 property as they are bound to return the benefit derived by them on the sale of Ext.B2 property when the said sale is set aside by the court. True, in view of Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, the minors are bound to return the benefits derived by them on cancellation of the voidable contract executed on their behalf. In the case on hand, if the plaintiffs intend to avoid Ext.B2 alienation, they cannot claim any right or title over Ext.B1 property, which is purchased using the sale consideration received as per Ext.B2. Ext.B9 is the plaint in O.S.No.897/1997. In Ext.B9 the only allegations are that their father sold the property covered under Ext.B1 without obtaining previous sanction of the court and that the alienation was not for their benefit. There is no averment in Ext.B9 that the said suit was instituted for recovering Ext.B1 property for the purpose of restoring the benefit derived by them back on cancellation of Ext.B2 document. That apart, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they did not get any benefit when Ext.B2 and B3 properties were alienated by the father. In such a case, there is no duty on the plaintiffs to restore the benefits obtained by the natural guardian as they did not derive any benefit. 27. The Trial Court, as well as the First Appellate, have arrived at the right conclusion that the sale of Ext.B2 and B3 properties of the minors and the purchase of Ext.B1 property for the minors were for the benefit of the minor plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs did these acts in the capacity of natural guardian of the minors as a prudent man dealing with his own property. 28. The father of the plaintiffs did these acts in the capacity of natural guardian of the minors as a prudent man dealing with his own property. 28. The aforesaid discussion would reveal that there is no perversity in the factual findings entered into by the Trial Court, which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises in the matter, and hence, the above Regular Second Appeal does not require admission. 29. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed without costs.