Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. The property in dispute in this suit was a shop at Dharwar belonging to one Narsappa, who died leaving a daughter, the present defendant No. 1, then a minor. A guardian was appointed of her person and property by the District Court in 1904. On April 9, 1913, the guardian sold the shop in suit to the second defendant for Rs.200, without obtaining permission from the District Court for the sale In 1915 one Sharadabai, who had obtained a decree for maintenance against Narsappa, got the shop attached and sold in execution and one Dyavappa purchased it at the auction sale Defendant No. 3 later purchased it from Dyavappa. Plaintiff purchased the property from the second defendant in 1919 and brought the suit to recover possession. The trial Court decreed the claim.
2. The lower appellate Court has dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The learned Judge: has misconstrued Section 30 of the Guardians and Wards Act VIII of 1890. The sale by Raghunath in 1913 to the second defendant without the permission of the District Court was voidable at the instance of any other person affected thereby. The only person affected at the time of the unauthorised sale was the minor, and when she came of age, she would be entitled to file a suit to get the unauthorised sale set aside, and as long an she did not do that, and as long as no one obtained a better title to the property, then the sale by the guardian continued to be a valid sale. There was nothing left, therefore, at the time of the execution sale of the property which the minor had inherited from her father, which could be conveyed to the auction-purchaser. The right of the minor to sue to get the unauthorised pale set aside could neither be attached nor sold, and consequently the purchaser at the auction sale could not oust the purchaser from Raghunath, even although the pale was not sanctioned by the District Court. That was really the only issue in the case, and the issue whether the sale was made for any legal necessity or for the benefit of defendant No. 1's estate was irrelevant. It would only be relevant in a suit by the minor herself.
3. The appeal will be allowed and the decree of the trial Court restored with coats throughout.