ARUNACHELA REDDI Vs. CHIDAMBARA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Lower Appellate Court decided against the validity of the alienations to defendants 3 and 4 on the ground, (1) that they were made by the 1 defendant who was the de facto guardian of the minor, her adopted son, at a time when there was a testamentary guardian who had been appointed under the will of the widow's husband. (2) that the alienees had failed to show that the alienations were necessary in the interest of the minor.

(2.) As regards the 1 ground it is well settled that an alienation may be validly made by a de facto guardian (assuming, of course, the necessity). In the present case, the 1 defendant, as the minor's mother, was his natural guardian. The evidence shows that the testamentary guardian, the plaintiff's father, (2nd defendant), acquiesced in the alienations made by the 1st defendant, and that he assisted her in the management of the estate. In our judgment the fact that at the time the alienations were made by the 1 defendant, the 2nd defendant had been appointed testamentary guardian is no ground for holding that it was competent for the 1 defendant to make the alienations.

(3.) As regards the question of necessity, the documentary evidence shows that the alienations were made in part for the purpose of discharging a liability incurred by the husband of the 1 defendant and in part in connection with litigation in which the question of the validity of the minor's adoption was involved