NATHU RAM Vs. BALAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal the question that arises is whether a guardian of a minor can alienate the property of the minor if the property is exempt from any liability for the debts of the previous holder. The debts in dispute were incurred by the father and I am told for the marriage of his daughter, the sister of the defendants. After the death of the father the debt was in 1931 acknowledged by Mst. Parmeshwari, the mother of the minor children. On 31st December, 1934 three mortgage deeds for Rs. 99/- and Rs. 77/- were executed by the mother acting as a guardian of the minor children and the condition was that if the interest was not paid the mortgage would be entitled to possession. The mortgagee has now sued for possession.

(2.) The question really is whether the mortgage was an act of good management on the part of the guardian. The land in dispute is occupancy rights under Section 6 and under Section 56 of the Punjab Tenancy Act a right in occupancy under Section 6 can neither be attached nor sold in execution of a decree or order and ancestral land is exempt from liability for the debts of the father under Section 9 of the Punjab Debtors Protection Act 2 of 1936. In these circumstances the dispute as to whether the parties are Governed by Hindu Law or custom is wholly irrelevant. The question is whether the guardian could mortgage the property which was exempt from attachment and sale when the debt was incurred by the predecessor-in-interest. This point the Courts below have absolutely ignored. In my view no guardian has a right to alienate the property of the minors in circumstances such as these. I would therefore, dismiss this appeal but leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.