OBLA VENKATACHALAPATHI AIYAR Vs. THIRUGNANA SAMBANDA PANDARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the minority of the plaintiff, the court purporting to act under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act appointed one Vaidyalinga Thambiran as the guardian of his person and property. As there were debts contracted by the predecessors of the Matadhipati, sanction was obtained under Section 29 of the Act to sell some of the properties of the mutt. The present appellants are the successors in interest of those who purchased the properties in pursuance of the order of the District Judge.

(2.) The minor Pandarasannadhi has attained age and now sues to set aside the sales. The Lower Appellate Court gave a decree to the plaintiff. In this Second Appeal, Mr. KV. Krishnaswami Aiyar contended that the properties of the mutt are not trust properties and that it was competent to the District Court to have appointed Vaidyalinga Thambiran as guardian under the Act. It may become necessary to consider on some future occasion whether the decision of the Judicial Commitee in Ram Parkash Das v. Anand Das (1916) I.L.R. 48 C. 707 : 31 M.L.J. 1 that the mutt properties partake of the nature of the trust properties should not be confined to the class of mutts under the consideration of the Board and whether the decision in Baluswami Iyer v. Venkitaswami Naicker (1916) 32 M.L.J. 25 does not lay down the proposition too broadly. We do not think it necessary to decide that question now.

(3.) In the present case, there is ample evidence to support the finding that in its inception the properties endowed were given to the head of the mutt as trustee. It has not been shown that the particular properties in suit are different in character from the originally endowed properties. We must therefore hold that the properties in suit are trust properties. Consequently under Section 7 Clause (a) no guardian should have been appointed. Section 29 which gives, power to sell the immoveable properties of the minor was therefore, wrongly invoked.