Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. We think that this appeal must succeed. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were minors at the time when the property was sold and the sale would only affect their share if it be proved that it was for necessity. It is going too far to say that a manager of a Hindu joint family can justify a sale of joint family property merely on the ground that the sale at the time appeared to be advantageous. The pertinent passage on the subject in Mayne on Hindu Law and Usage can be found at pages 476 and 477, last edition. At the bottom of p. 477 there is the following passage from the judgment in Palaniappa Chetty v. Deivasikamony Pandara :
No authority has been cited giving any countenance to the notion that a Shebait is entitled to sell debottar lands solely for the purpose of so investing the price of it as to bring in an income larger than that derived from the probably safer and certainly more stable property, the debottar land itself.
2. The commentary says:
The case referred to the latitude of alienation permissible to a Shebait in charge of debottar lands. But it was argued...and decided on the footing that the same principles were applicable an those which regulate the rights of alienation passed by the manager of joint family property.
3. It would be going much further than any principle of Hindu law warrants to hold that because a manager of joint family considers it advantageous at the time to exchange joint family land for money, such an alienation can be treated as justified and therefore binding on the minor members of the family.
4. The decree, therefore, of the trial Court must be restored and the appellants will be entitled to their costs throughout.