Guardian's sale for legal necessity upheld; mixed sale and surrender transaction could not be split to grant relief.

A guardian may validly alienate minors' share for legal necessity where the facts found support such necessity, and the earlier family deaths did not attract the Succession Act of 1865 on the record before the Court; the sale was therefore upheld. Although the sale and surrender were admitted to form one transaction, distinct consideration was allocated to each part, and in the absence of a plea challenging that allocation, the transaction could not be reworked by treating the sale consideration as dependent on the surrender. The lower appellate court erred in dissecting the mixed transaction, and the suit was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the minor plaintiffs' guardian could validly alienate their share for legal necessity without attracting the Succession Act of 1865; (ii) whether the sale and surrender deeds formed one indivisible transaction so that the transfer of occupancy rights could be treated separately and invalidated alone.

Issue (i): whether the minor plaintiffs' guardian could validly alienate their share for legal necessity without attracting the Succession Act of 1865.

Analysis: The pleaded case of both sides was that the plaintiffs owned the property and that Mt. Kajaria acted as their guardian at the time of transfer. The earlier deaths in the family did not make the Succession Act applicable on the facts as found, and the transfer was supported by a finding of legal necessity.

Conclusion: The guardian's authority was not negatived by the Succession Act, and the sale was valid on the finding of legal necessity.

Issue (ii): whether the sale and surrender deeds formed one indivisible transaction so that the transfer of occupancy rights could be treated separately and invalidated alone.

Analysis: The sale and surrender were admitted to have been one transaction, but the record showed distinct consideration allocated to the two parts. In the absence of a plea disputing that allocation, the legal and illegal elements could not be re-formed by treating the sale consideration as conditional on the surrender. The lower appellate Court proceeded on a procedural misapprehension in separating the transaction.

Conclusion: The transaction was not to be dissected in the manner adopted below, and the plaintiffs were not entitled to relief on that footing.

Final Conclusion: The decree under appeal was set aside and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed, with the mixed transaction treated as not warranting the declaration granted by the lower appellate Court.

---