The plaintiff sues to set aside a mortgage of her properties effected by her father-in-law. Her suit was dismissed on the ground that the mortgage was effected for necessary purposes.
The Subordinate Judge finds that the father-in-law was not her guardian under the Muhammadan Law, but he was really managing her affairs: we agree with his finding. He also finds that he purchased certain properties under Exhibit IV for the plaintiff. The purchase was in his opinion beneficial to her, as she is a gosha lady. To raise money for the purchase the father-in-law executed the mortgage now sought to be set aside.
We are of opinion that a person who is not a minor's guardian in law but only a de facto guardian is not entitled to mortgage the minor's property to purchase a house for her for the purpose alleged. It is true that it might be more convenient to her to have more space to move about without being observed by strangers. But for this purpose her guardian cannot charge the minor's property.
At the same time it is clear that she cannot retain the property purchased out of the funds so raised and she says she lays no claim to it and is prepared to execute any conveyance if necessary. She is entitled to recover possession of the property in Schedule II with mesne profits past and future at Rs. 25 a year from 1908. We further direct the plaintiff to execute a conveyance of the properties purchased under Exhibit IV in favour of the 12th defendant and if in possession to surrender the property to the 12th defendant. The appellant will get her costs in this Court. In the lower Courts the parties will bear their own costs.
Appeal allowed.