THAYAMMAL Vs. KUPPANNA KOUNDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Following Kristo Kissor Neoghey v. Kader Moye Dossee (1871) 2 C.L.R. 583 and Musst. Bhihno Koer v. Musst Chamelu Koer (1897) 2 C.W.N. 191. I hold that under Hindu Law, nobody-else than the father and mother of a minor (with probable exceptions in favour of the elder brother and the direct male and female ancestors of the minor) is entitled as a matter of natural right to be and to act as guardian of a minor s person and properties. Recourse must be had to the court (representing the rights of the king which are paramount to even the rights of the parents, where there is no natural guardian alive.

(2.) The paternal aunt was therefore not the natural guardian of the plaintiff when she made the unauthorised alienation.

(3.) Assuming that she was the de facto guardian, her alienation for no necessity need not be set aside. Article 44 of the Limitation Act does not apply to alienations by unauthorised guardians See Mata Din v. Ahmed Ali (1911) I.L.R. 34 A. 213 the Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is right in the main but in the decretal portion, it decrees possession of the entire lands covered by Exhibit III forgetting that so far as the portions covered by Exhibit II are concerned the claim had been held to be barred by limitation.