The Lower Appellate Court has decided the appeals on the single ground that the suit is barred by Art. 44 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act, which runs as follows:—“by a ward who has attained majority, to set aside a transfer of property by his guardian.” It has been held by the Privy Council in Gharib-ullah v. Khalak Singh, that there cannot be a guardian of a minor's interest in an undivided Hindu family for the simple reason that such an interest is not individual property at all. Mr. Narasimham argued, that this ruling only applies to the appointment of a guardian by a Court. But the reason applies with equal force to the case of a person claiming guardianship by natural right. Applying this rule we must hold that the sale of the minor plaintiff's property by J. Panda under Exhibit I was not the act of a guardian of property whatever it purported to be and following Kathaperumal Thevan v. Ramalinga Thevan, that Art. 44 has no application to the present suit for declaration that the sale is not binding. It is not shown that the suit is barred under any other article And we must therefore set aside the decrees of the Lower Appellate Court and remand the appeals for disposal on their merits.
Costs will abide and follow the result.
M. K.Case remanded.