Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by one of the defendants against the appellate judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Bharatpur in a redemption suit, The plaintiff Moolchand filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage of a house situated in the town of Bayana near Gilhoria well. It was alleged that the said property was mortgaged by Jawahar the ancestor of the defencants Nos. 6 to 19 in favour of Sunsiram and Johri predecessor in interest of defendant No. 2 (hereinafter to be referred to as the first mortgagees ). THIS mortgaged was with possession and for a sum of Rs. 314/ -, Afterwards the property was mortgaged as per mortgage deed dated the 1st of May, 1899 in favour of the defendant No. 3 Chiranji Lal and Thakuria fathers of defendants Nos. 4 and 5, Gurraj and Pyareylal respectively, hereinafter to be known as the second mortgagees), with possession. The second mortgagees by sale deed dated the 8th of September, 1937, sold their mortgagee rights to Harnarain, defendant No. 1. It was further alleged that Mst. Phondi defendant No. 2 successor in interest of the first mortgagees redeemed this property in favour of Shyamlal defendant No. 6, the successor in interest of the original mortgagees defendant No. 6 transferred this property in favour of the plaintiff by the sale -deed dated the 4th of June, 1946. The plaintiff claimed that he was consequently, the respresentative of the mortgagors and was entitled to redeem the property from the defendant No. 1.
(2.) THE only contesting defendant in this case was Harnarain, defendant No. 1. It was admitted that the property in dispute was mortgaged by Jawahar to Ghasiram Manulal. It was further admitted that Sunsiram and Johri were the successor in interest of Manu Lal. It was however, denied that defendant Nos. 6 to 15 were the desecdants of Jawahar. It was further denied that Mst. Phondi defendant No. 2 was the successor in interest of Sunsiram and Johri. It was admitted that Sunsiram and Johri had mortgaged the property in dispute to Ghasiram and Thakuria, and it was added that Ghasiram or any of his successors in interest did not join in this mortgage. It was further admitted that the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 were the successors in interest of Chuniram and Thakuria and that they had executed a sale deed of their mortgagee rights in favour of Harnarain and had put him in possession thereof. It was further pleaded that defendant No. 6 was neither the first mortgagee of the property in dispute nor had any connection therewith. THE allegations about the redemption of the property in favour of Shyamlal were denied and it was stated that Shyamlal did not get any right in the property by virtue of any such ikrarnama as alleged by the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that Girraj had left a son who was in existence at the time of the execution of the alleged ikrarnama Ex. 8 and was still alive. Mst. Phondi had therefare, no rights in the presences of the son to redeem the property or execute any ikrarnama in respect thereof in favour of Shyamlal. Bar of limitation was also pleaded and the jurisdiction of the court was also questioned. Mst. Phondi defendant No, 2 did not file any written statement and the case proceeded ex -parte against her. The defendants Nos. 3 and 5 filed their written statements supporting the plaintiff's claim and so did the defendant No. 6. The defendants Nos 7 to to 15 did not file any written statement and the case against them also proceeded ex -parte. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Munsif, Bayana - (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the property ? Whether Shyamlal defendant No. 6 is the heir of the original mortgagee Jawahar and the successor in interest of Sunsi and Johri and had any right to sell the property in suit to the plaintiff? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the property in suit ? (3) Whether the suit is lime barred ? (4) Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? (5) Whether there was defect of nonjoinder of necessary parties ? (6) Whether the court fee paid is sufficient? (7) Whether the suit is maintainable ? (8) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ? On all these issues, the learned Munsif found in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Har Narain defendant went in appeal, but the learned Civil Judge also who heard the appeal, maintained the decree of the first court. Har Narain has come in appeal to this court. The judgments of the lower courts were challenged by Mr. D. M. Bhandari merely on the following ground; - (1) There is no legal evidence to show that Jawahar was the predecessor in interest of Shyamlal the defendant No. 6. (2 ). Mst. Phondi defendant No. 2 was not the heir of Sunsi and Johri the first mortgagees and had no right to redeem the property of Shyamlal or otherwise transfer to him any rights in the property validly. It was argued that the defendant No. 6 Shyamlal has been held to be a descendant of the original mortgagor Jawahar on the basis of a shajra. It was neither admissible in evidence nor was satisfactorily proved. In this connection ruling of the Privy Council in the case of Thakur Ganesh Bakhsh Singh vs. Thakur Ajudhia Bakhsh Singh (1) was cited. It was argued that even according to the shajra, Jawahar is in the branch of Nathu, whereas Shyamlal defendant No 6 has been shown in the branch of Nandu. Shyan lal according to the shajra it self,is a much remoter reversioner of Jawahar and therefore, he had no right to the property of Jawahar in the presence of other nearer reversioners. It was further argued that Mst. Phondi defendant No. 2 was not the heir of Sunsi and Johri as according to the evidence on the record Mst. Phondi's husband Ghasi had left a son Ramji Lal who is still alive. Further, it was argued that the so called ikrarnama Ex. 8 in no case validly transfers the property in dispute to Shyamlal. On behalf of the principal respondents that is the plaintiffs, it was argued by Mr. C. L. Agarwal that it was fully established by the evidence on the record that Shyamlal was the successor in interest of the original mortgagor Jawahar. It was argued that the shajra was a very valuable piece of evidence to prove this fact. It was further argued that in no case, Mst. Phondi who was the legal guardian of Girraj's son Ramjilal minor at the time of the execution of the ikrarnama Ex. 8, was fully entitled to make transfer of the property in dispute in favour of Shyamlal. Reliance was placed upon the rulings of Bombay High Court in the case of Succaram Morarji Shetoy vs. Kalidas Kalianji (2) and Murari vs. Tayana (3) in order to show that the mother as guardian of her minor son has authority to sell her husband's estate in order to pay off his debts and the omission of any reference to the minor in the deed of sale does not render it ineffectual if it is proved that it was her intention to deal with the son's interest, and not merely with any interest which she might have herself. On behalf of the appellants, Mr. D. M. Bhandari referred in reply to this part of Mr. Agarwal's argument by citing the ruling reported in the cases of Maharana Shri Ranmalsinghji vs. Vadilal Vakhatchand (1) and Bhawal Sahu vs. Baijnath Pertab Narain Singh (5), Indur Chunder Singh vs. Radha Kishore Ghose (6), Balwant Singh vs. R. Clancy and Balwant Singh vs. Maharaj Singh (7) and Nandan Prasad vs. Hafiz Abdul Azis (8 ). I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. First of all, I have got to see whether it has been proved that Shyamlal was the sole legal representative of Jawahar at the time the ikrarnama Ex. 8 is said to have been executed in his favour by Mst. Phondi. The only evidence showing the relationship of Shyamlal with Jawahar is the Shajra Ex, 6. It purports to have been filed in some cases which were decided in the year 1900. There is no evidence to show what special means of knowledge, the person responsible for the preparation of the shajra had about the pedigree of Jawahar's family. The mere fact that shajra was filed in a certain litigation by a person who alleged himself to be belonging to Jawahar's family, does not Show that shajra was correct. There ought to have been something to show how far, the person responsible for the shajra had personal knowledge and how far, he had knowledge through other persons who had special knowledge about the family pedigree. It was held in the case of Thakur Ganesh Bakhsh Singh vs. Thakur Ajudhia Bakhsh Singh (l ). "where a pedigree filed by a deceased in a suit is such that it was not brought home to him except as being an exhibit binding on him for purposes of that suit, his relation to the document is something entirely different from the personal knowledge and belief which must be found or presumed in any statement of a deceased person which is admissible in evidence. " I do not think that this shajra satisfactorily proves that Shyamlal defendant No. 6 belongs to the family of Jawahar much less that Shyamlal was the nearest reversioner of Jawahar at the time Ex. 8 is said to have been executed or he executed a sale -deed in favour of the plaintiff. The lower court were wrong in holding Shyamlal to be the legal representative of Jawahar on the strength of the above mentioned evidence and in holding so, they committed a mistake in law. Having held that Shyamlal is not proved to be the legal representative of Jawhar, the only question that has got to be seen in whether any rights were validly transferred by Mst. Phondi to Shyamlal by Ex. 8. From the evidence of the plaintiff Moolchand himself, it emerges that Girraj the husband of Mst. Phondi had left a son and that he was thirty years old at the time the plaintiff was examined i. e. , 20th of February, 1948. This means that this son of Girraj might have been born in about 1918 Ex. 8 was executed in the year, 1921. It is thus clear that Girraj had a son living at the time Ex. 8 was executed by Mst. Phondi. In the presence of Girraj's son, Mst. Phondi had no right in the property in dispute. Mr. Agarwal however, argued that Mst. Phondi was at that time the guardian of her minor son, and therefore, was entitled to transfer the property in favour of Shyamlal validly and so Shyamlal gets the mortgagee rights of Sunsi and Johri. Therefore, he had a right to redeem the property in dispute irrespective of the fact whether he was the heir of Jawahar or not, It was argued relying on the rulings in the cases of Succaram Murarji Shetay vs. Kalidas Kalianji (2) and Murari vs. Tayana (3), that if a mother who is the guardian of a minor son, makes some transfer of her son's property, it would be deemed to be a transfer binding on the minor. I have read these two rulings carefully. In the case of Succaram Morarji, a conveyance was made by one Mst. Chimanbai widow of Dhoble. At the time of the conveyance, Mst. Chimanbai had two minor sons. It was held that although, Mst. Chimanbai had not executed the deed describing herself to be the guardian of her minor sons, yet the sale was made on account of present necessity inasmuch as certain debts were due against the minor sons, In that case, there was evidence that Mst. Chimanabai intended to sell the property as that of her husband and did not get his sons to join because they were too young. In the light of this evidence, and because the terms of the deed when read as a whole did not show any other intention on the part of Mst. Chimnabai, it was held that Mst. Chimanbai purported to sell the property on behalf of the minors. It was observed that the effect of a conveyance of property sold by the manager of a family depends on the intention of the parties as gathered from the terms of the instrument and from the surrounding circumstances. On the peculiar terms of the deed and under the circumstances of the case and on the evidence produced, the learned Judge of the Bombay High Court who decided that case, might have been justified in holding that the transfer was on behalf of the minor. In the case of Murari vs. Tavana (3), the mother of a minor son, sold certain property belonging to him to pay off her husband's debts. That case was also decided on the peculiar facts of that case and it by no means lays down a general rule that whenever a person who transfers a properly apparently on his own account is found to be a guardian of some minors he should be taken to have made the transfer on behalf of the minor, for the property transferred is the minor's property. This is an ordinary principle of law that no person is entitled to sell any property unless he has any interest of his own therein. Of course, a karta of a joint Hindu family and guardians of minors are in special circumstance, entitled to transfer the property in which the minors have interest and in such circumstances, the transfer is binding upon the minor. A guardian can sell a minor's property only if it is for the legal interest and benefit of the minor. Even, therefore, if Mst. Phondi had transferred the property in dispute on behalf of the minor, it would have been binding upon the minor only if it had been for the legal necessity. However, in such a case, it could have been argued that the transfer was binding upon the minor and no other person had any right to question it. But in this case, Ex. 8 does not show that the property has been transferred on behalf of the minor. Mst. Phondi appears to have transferred the property as if she had title to transfer it in her own right. If the property were transferred for some debts outstanding against her minor son Ramjilal or for his benefit or for some other legal necessity, it might have been inferred that she intended to convey the property as guardian of the minor. However, in this case, she has treated Shyamlal as a successor in interest of Jawahar and has redeemed the property in his favour. There is nothing to show in the deed that the relinquishment was for any benefit or legal necessity of the minor. As the evidence stands in this case, it is also proved what was the consideration for the so called transfer or relinquishment. There are no circumstances in this case from which it might be inferred that the transfer was on behalf of the minor. In this case, it was no -where, alleged much less proved by the plaintiff that Mst. Phondi transferred the property or relinquished it in favour of Shyamlal on behalf of the minor. Rather, it has been said in the plaint that Mst. Phondi was the first mortgagee and she redeemed the property in favour of the defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5 and Shyamlal defendant No 6. The plaintiff Moolchand has in his statement nowhere said that the transfer was made by Mst Phondi on behalf of the minor, but he has said that Mst. Phondi had redeemed the property in favour of Shyamlal. Shyamlal has also not said that when this property was redeemed in his favour by Mst. Phondi, she did so on behalf of the minor. It cannot, therefore, be taken that the transfer 6r relinquishment was made on behalf of the minor. Mst. Phondi had no right to transfer the property in dispute. As regards redemption it has not been proved in the case that Mst. Phondi was entitled to allow redemption of the property to Shyamlal. The ikrarnama Ex. 8 simply shows that the property was redeemed to Shyamlal. If, therefore, Shyamlal is not proved to have any right to redeem the property, the said ikrarnama passes no right to him. Shyamlal, therefore, had no right to transfer this property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was consequently not entitled to redeem the property and the suit has not been rightly decreed. As in my view the rulings relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff -respondent do not help him in the circumstances of the present case, I consider it unnecessary to go into the question raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the rulings referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant apply to a case where personal liability is sought to be enforced against the minor or the minor himself challenges the transfer made by his guardian. The appeal is allowed, the decrees of the lower courts are set aside and the suit is dismissed. The plaintiff shall pay the costs throughout to Harnarain appellant. .;