Following Hunoomanpersaud Panday v. Mussumat Babooee Munraj Koonweree(5), and Murari v. Tayana, we hold (especially having in view the description of the mortgaged property in Exhibit I as having been registered in the name of the mother as the guardian of her minor son) that that document was executed by her in her capacity as guardian of her son though she is not so described in the body of the document. The case in Kamakshi Nayakan v. Ramasami Nayakan, quoted by the Appellants' Counsel has been dissented from in Sivavadivelu v. Ponnammal, and we have no doubt that Art. 44 of the Limitation Act applies to this suit and that it was rightly held barred by the District Court. The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.