A de facto guardian's sale of a minor's property, with the consent of the lawful guardians, is valid and binding on the minor, and the limitation period for challenging such a sale under Article 44 of the Limitation Act, 1908, begins to run from the date when the minor attains majority and becomes aware of the right to sue.

( 1 ) THE main question for decision in this appeal relates to a plea of limitation , which along with other defences, was successfully urged in the trial Court to non-suit the plaintiff. The plaintiff, and the 12th defendant who tool no part in the proceeding, are sisters and their father is the Ist defendant in this action. Their mother died in 1932. At a time when both the daughters were still minors, the Ist defendant conveyed on 11-7-1938 under six separate deeds, the property belonging to them to the defendants 4 to 9. He purported to act on their behalf as guardian though by that time both of them were married. The plaintiff, who is younger in age, was however still living with her father, the consummation of the marriage apparently not having taken place, by the date of the sales. They are impugned on the ground that they were not justified by necessity. Nor were they effected for the benefit of the minor or for proper price. The father is charged with having acted in bad faith and the sale proceeds had not been accounted for.

( 2 ) THE sales that are impeached were effected in 1938 and this action in forma pauper is was commenced on 20/04/1954. the age of the plaintiff was given as 27 years as on the date of the plaint. That would imply that she attained the age of majority in 1945. The plaintiff avers that the several acts relating to management by the Ist defendant and the nature of her title were concealed form her knowledge and that the plaintiff was told when she questioned her father that there was no property of her mother. The plea advanced in the pleading is that by reason of the fraud and deception practiced by her father, she was kept in the dark as to her right to sue and she came to know about her right only about the middle of the year 1947. The suit is thus said to be saved form the bar of limitation. No relief for setting aside of the sales is prayed for and the plaintiff asked for partition and possession of her half share of the property. Her sister did not join in the suit. Nor did she support the case of the plaintiff by appearance at the trial or participation in the proceedings. The Ist defendant denied the charges of fraud and deception. He asserted that the sales were effected with the approval and knowledge of the plaintiffs husband and father-in-law and the price realised was adequate. The sales were effected because it was beneficial to sell the property. The moiety of sale proceeds of the plaintiff was paid over to the plaintiffs father-in-law and husband. The alliances filed a separate pleading and resisted the suit.

( 3 ) THE Subordinate Judge, Ongole, who tried the suit held that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned Judge also held that the sales in dispute were effected by the Ist defendant as guardian of the plaintiff and the 12th defendant and that the transactions are valid and binding on the plaintiff. The learned Judge also found that there was a deliberate over-valuation of the suit property by the plaintiff and that at the time of the institution of the suit, the market value of the property was about Rs. 500. 00 per acre.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff has preferred this appeal and the main point for determination is, whether the suit was brought within the time allowed by law.

( 5 ) IT is necessary to set out certain relevant facts before considering the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The elder sister of the plaintiff, who is impleaded as the 12th defendant, refused to join the plaintiff in the institution of the suit. Nor did the 12th defendant, raise any dispute at any time questioning the validity of the alienations effected by her father. The 12th defendant did not participate at the trial and chose to remain ex parte. The dispute relates to the sale of about 13 acres of dry land comprised in S. No. 6 and situate at Manidipalem village in Ongole Taluk. The lands were admittedly held by the plaintiffs mother, who, it appears acquired title