- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mayilswami Chettiar v. Kaliammal And Others.
Factual and Procedural Background
The suit arises from a mortgage executed by the defendants' mother on behalf of the minor defendants. The mortgage was originally for Rs. 1,500, but the lower appellate Court found that only Rs. 900 of this amount was supported by necessity. The mortgage deed recited that the money was borrowed for family expenses. Evidence was given that the money was lent after inquiries about the debt and the minors' necessity, and that it was spent on maintenance, education, and repairs. The courts below held that the mortgage was supported by necessity and binding on the defendants. The present appeal challenges the validity of the mortgage executed by the mother, acting as de facto guardian, while the father was alive.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a mortgage executed by a mother as de facto guardian of minor children, while the father is alive and is the legal guardian, is valid.
- Whether an alienation of a Hindu minor’s property by a de facto guardian is binding if it is for necessity, even when a legal guardian exists.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Reliance was placed on the decision in Narayanan Nambudri v. Ravunni Nair, where it was held that a step-mother managing the household had no right to mortgage family properties for necessity, implying that a de facto guardian cannot alienate property if a legal guardian exists.
Respondent's Arguments
- The mortgage was necessary and for family expenses, supported by evidence.
- The mother, as de facto guardian, had the authority to alienate the property for necessity.
- Authorities support that alienations by de facto guardians for necessity are binding even if a legal guardian exists, especially where the legal guardian has acquiesced.
- The father attested the mortgage deed and had acquiesced in the mother's management of the property.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Arunachalt Reddi v. Chidambara Reddi (1902) 13 M.L.J. 223 | Alienation by a natural and de facto guardian for necessity is valid even if a testamentary guardian exists, especially with acquiescence. | Applied to hold that the mother’s mortgage was valid as the father had attested the deed and acquiesced in her management. |
| Kundan Lal v. Beni Prasad (1931) 137 I.C. 115 | An alienation by a person managing the estate in place of a natural guardian can be valid. | Supported the validity of alienation by a de facto guardian when the natural guardian did not function. |
| Narayanan Nambudri v. Ravunni Nair (1924) 47 M.L.J. 686 | Step-mother managing household had no right to mortgage family property for necessity; de facto guardianship did not confer such right. | Distinguished and criticized; not followed as binding precedent for Hindu law in this case. |
| Vamulapalli Seetharamamma v. Maganti Appiah (1936) I.L.R. 49 Mad. 768; 50 M.L.J. 689 | Alienations by de facto guardians of Hindu minors are not per se void if for necessity. | Followed to uphold the validity of the mortgage executed by the mother as de facto guardian. |
| Ganjayya v. Ramaswami (1913) 24 M.L.J. 428 | Natural mother is a lawful guardian for the purpose of Section 21 of the Limitation Act even if a testamentary guardian exists but does not act. | Used to reinforce the validity of the mother’s alienation of the property. |
| Hanuman Persaud Panday v. Mst. Babooee Munraj Kunweree (1856) 6 M.I.A. 393 | Right of de facto guardian to deal with Hindu minor’s property is recognized if alienation is for necessity. | Established foundational principle supporting the mortgage’s validity. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed whether a mortgage executed by a mother acting as de facto guardian was valid despite the existence of a living father as the natural guardian. It recognized that both parents are natural guardians under Hindu law, but noted that the father’s attestation of the mortgage deed and his acquiescence to the mother’s management of the property supported the validity of the mortgage. The Court relied on established precedents that alienations by de facto guardians for necessity are binding, even if a legal guardian exists. It distinguished the appellant’s principal reliance on Narayanan Nambudri v. Ravunni Nair, which held a step-mother had no right to mortgage family property, by citing later authoritative decisions that recognized the validity of such alienations under Hindu law. The Court concluded that the mortgage was supported by necessity to the extent of Rs. 900 and that the mother’s alienation was valid as a de facto guardian.
Holding and Implications
The second appeal is dismissed.
The Court upheld the validity of the mortgage executed by the mother as de facto guardian to the extent of Rs. 900, recognizing that alienations by de facto guardians for necessity are binding even when a legal guardian exists, provided there is acquiescence. There will be no order as to costs. This decision directly affects the parties by affirming the mortgage’s validity but does not establish a new precedent beyond the application of existing principles.
1. The first defendant is the appellant. The defendants' mother executed a mortgage on the foot of which the suit out of which this second appeal arises was filed. The mortgage was for Rs. 1,500 and the lower appellate Court has now found that the mortgage is supported by necessity only to the extent of Rs. 900. The recital in the mortgage is that it was borrowed for family expenses. P.W. I gave evidence that they made enquiries about the debt and necessity of the minors and that only after satisfying themselves they lent the money. P.W. 2 gave evidence that the money was spent for maintenance and education of the defendants and also for carrying out repairs to the well. There is, therefore, no question that, as found by the Courts below, the mortgage is supported by necessity and is binding on the defendants.
2. The only other question that arises is whether the mortgage executed by the mother as the de facto guardian of the minors, while the father is alive, is valid or not. The position of the de facto guardian under Hindu law is indeed so well established that there is no need to cite any authority for the proposition that an alienation by a de facto guardian, if for necessity, is binding on the minors. The only question that arises therefore, in this case is whether where there is a legal guardian, an alienation by a de facto guardian will be valid. Both the father and the mother are natural guardians of their minor children. There is no doubt that if a contest arose as between the lather and the mother as to who should be the guardian of the minors, then it would be the father who would be the guardian. Therefore the question is whether even where there is a father for the minors alive, the mother can acting as de facto guardian of the minors, alienate their property for necessity. Authorities seem to favour the view that she can. The earliest case is the one reported in Arunachalt Reddi v. Chidambara Reddi (1902) 13 M.L.J. 223. In that case there was a testamentary guardian appointed for the minor. But the minor's mother alienated the minor's property. It was held that the alienation of minor's estate made by the natural and de facto guardian will be valid if for necessity, notwithstanding that there was a testamentary guardian in existence (especially where such testamentary guardian had acquiesced in the alienation). In this case also the father has attested the mortgage deed and the management of the property having all along been with the mother, the father should also be deemed to have acquiesced in the mortgage. In Kundan Lal v. Beni Prasad (1931) 137 I.C. 115, the mother of the minors was alive. But for some reason or other she did not function as a guardian and their estate was managed by their uncle. An alienation made by him was held valid. Reliance was placed, on behalf of the appellant, on the decision reported in Narayanan Nambudri v. Ravunni Nair (1924) 47 M.L.J. 686, In that case it was held that a step-mother who was managing the household and looking after the minors had no right to mortgage the properties of the family for family necessity. In fact, at page 689, it is mentioned that it was not contended that the de facto guardianship of the step-mother gave her any right to mortgage the estate. This decision has been criticised and differed from by a Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Vamulapalli Seetharamamma v. Maganti Appiah (1936) I.L.R. 49 Mad. 768 at 774 : 50. M.L.J. 689. Referring to the decision in Nambudri's case (1924) 47 M.L.J. 686, it was said as follows:
I would take leave to say that if the parties were governed by the Hindu law, I should have thought it might have been well contended that the mortgage, if for necessity, could be upheld.
At page 776, it is mentioned that:
Alienations by de facto guardians of Hindu minors have come up very frequently before Courts, and our attention has not been directed to any decided case in which it has been held that such an alienation was per se void, apart from : any question as to whether it was for legal necessity or not.
3. In that judgment the decision in Ganjayya v. Ramaswami (1913) 24 M.L.J. 428, where it was held that the natural mother was a " lawful guardian " for the purpose of Section 21 of the Limitation Act, even though there was a testamentary guardian named in the will of the adoptive father who was unwilling to act, was also noticed. This decision in Ganjayya v. Ramaswami (1913) 24 M.L.J. 428, may well be compared with the decision already referred to and reported in Arunachala Reddi v. Chidambara Reddi (1902) 13 M.L.J. 223. It has been finally held that Seetharamamma's case (1925) 50 M.L.J. 689 at p. 698 : I.L.R. 49 Mad. 768 at 779.
... the right of a de facto guardian to deal with the property of a Hindu minor has been recognised by our Courts ever since the decision of the Privy Conncil in Hanuman Persaud Panday v. Mst. Babooee Munraj Kunweree (1856) 6 M.I.A. 393 at 412, provided the alienation was for necessity.
4. Thus it is amply clear that even when there is a legal guardian in existence, any alienation of minor's property by a de facto guardian would be valid if it is for necessity. It follows that the decision of the lower appellate Court upholding the mortgage to the extent of Rs. 900 which it held was for necessity is valid. This second appeal is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert