1. There is ample authority that a guardian of the property of an infant cannot properly be appointed in respect of the infant's interest in the property of an undivided Mitakshara family, the reason being that the infant's interest is not individual property--vide Gharibullah v. Khalak Singh 25 A. 407, Harihar Pershad Singh v. Mathura Lal 35 C. 561 and Shamkuar v. Mohanunda Sahoy 19 C. 301.
2. The same principle would apply a fortiori in the case of an Aliyasunthanum, family like the present, where the only right of the infant is aright to be maintained in the family house. It is argued that there is no objection to the appointment of a guardian in the present case because the mother and adult brother of the minors are willing that a guardian of the minors' property should be appointed. This, however, cannot effect the question; seeing that the minors have no property in respect of which a guardian can properly be appointed. This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order of the District Judge set aside with costs in both Courts.