https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311981 An alienation by a de facto guardian is binding only where the transferee affirmatively proves legal necessity; on the facts, the alleged debts, marriage expenses and Sudhi ceremony expenditure were not established, so the sale was not binding on the plaintiff. The suit was also held not barred by limitation because Article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied to de jure guardian alienations, while a de facto guardian's sale attracted the longer limitation period. The first appellate court's failure to consider material admissions and the trial court's reasoning justified interference in second appeal, as such non-consideration undermined the finding under Section 100 CPC. en-us Thu, 24 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jan 2024 12:28:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311981 An alienation by a de facto guardian is binding only where the transferee affirmatively proves legal necessity; on the facts, the alleged debts, marriage expenses and Sudhi ceremony expenditure were not established, so the sale was not binding on the plaintiff. The suit was also held not barred by limitation because Article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied to de jure guardian alienations, while a de facto guardian's sale attracted the longer limitation period. The first appellate court's failure to consider material admissions and the trial court's reasoning justified interference in second appeal, as such non-consideration undermined the finding under Section 100 CPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311981