KOPPARA KANDIYIL CHANGAN MANCHERI Vs. ANTHALATHIL KALLERI KATHEESA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in this case. He wants to enforce against the defendants No. 2 to 5 (children of the 1st defendant) a mortgage-deed executed by the 1st defendant as their guardian.

(2.) The plaint assumes that the 1st defendant was the de jure guardian of the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 when she executed the mortgage-deed, but it is now admitted that she was not the de jure guardian of the minors.

(3.) Then it is argued that she was the de facto guardian. Even if she was, her document could not bind, the minors unless it was executed for meeting such urgent necessity or for securing such clear and undoubted benefit to the minors as are held to be necessary to be proved in Hyderman Kutti v. Syed Ali 15 Intl. Cas. 576 : 23 Mad. L.J. 244 : 12 M.L.T. 147 : (1912) M.W.N. 889. No foundation was laid on the plaint for any such case and having looked into the evidence of the only two witnesses examined on the plaintiff s side, we find no such necessity or undoubted benefit established by that evidence.