1. It is not disputed that the plaintiff, vendor and his uncle were members of an undivided family at the date of the alienation in plaintiff's favour. Under Hindu law the undivided paternal uncle will be the guardian of his minor nephew. The sale deeds were executed by the uncle and by the mother of the minor who was put forward as his guardian, and the question is whether a suit to set aside the sale falls under Article 44, Sch. 1, Lim. Act. If the mother was not in law the guardian, it is difficult to see how Article 44, which refers to suits to set aside sales by guardians, could have any application. All the cases referred to by the appellant are cases where the mother was admittedly the guardian.
2. It is argued that the recital in the sale-deeds must be taken to have severed the status and that consequently the mother must be deemed to have been the guardian.
3. This point was not raised in the lower Courts and we do not think that a mere perusal of the sale deeds would enable us to decide that the minor and his uncle were divided when the sale deeds were signed.
4. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
S.N/R.K
5. Appeal dismissed.