The remarriage of a female ward does not automatically terminate the guardianship of her property, and the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, do not confer an absolute estate in the disputed land in her favor if she has no legal ownership in the property after her remarriage.

( 1 ) ONE Ushabala (plaintiff) filed the present suit on the allegation that the disputed properties belonged to her husband, Gostha Behari Khan. The latter died leaving her as widow and a son. Sashanka Sekhar. Her son also died leaving his minor widow, Kalibala pro forma defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 1, Gobinda Charan Khan, who is Gostha Behari's elder brother, was appointed guardian of Kalibala's person and property by the District Judge, Midnapore, and so the property in question was under his management, On the 29th of Ashar 1361 B. S. Kalibala was married to one Bhutnath Chowdhury, pro forma defendant No. 3. By such remarriage she was divested of her interest in the disputed property and the same devolved on the plaintiff as the next reversioner of her son Sashanka Sekhar. Hence, Gobinda Chandra's guardianship also came to an end with Kalibala's remarriage. He is in wrongful possession of the disputed property. The suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession and mesne profits and also for injunction. Subsequently by amending the plaint the prayer for partition was added.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 filed a written statement denying the plaintiffs allegations. He alleged that he still continued to be Kalibala's guardian. The alleged remarriage was invalid because no consent of the Court guardian was obtained.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif accepted the plaintiff's version in p Article He stated that since defendant No. 1 was appointed guardian by the Court, his possession was not wrongful. So he allowed the plaintiffs other prayers but refused the claim for mesne profits.

( 4 ) AGAINST that decision defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal. The plaintiff also filed a cross-objection for getting the mesne profits. The learned Subordinate Judge, Midnapore, allowed the appeal and the cross-objection and remanded the case to find out whether all were ejmali properties and if the plaintiff was entitled to a partition of the same. Against that order the High Court was moved. The High Court stated that the marriage was true. The case was remitted to the Subordinate Judge, Midnapore, to determine the other points and to ascertain the quantum of mesne profits.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER the learned Subordinate Judge found in favour of the plaintiff on all the points. He stated that after Kalibala's remarriage the guardianship of defendant No. 1 came to an end for all intents and purposes. He also stated that with the enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the provisions of the Hindu Widow's Remarriage Act. 1856 were impliedly repealed. Against that decision the present appeal has been filed.

( 6 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that it is common ground that defendant No. 1 was appointed Kalibala's guardian regarding her person and property by the District Judge, Midhapore. But the plaintiff did not appoint her guardian for the purpose of the present suit. It has thus been contended that the provisions of Order 32, Rules 3 and 4 C. P. C. have been violated. The case of Nirmal Chandra v. Khandu, in has been cited to show that where the minor is not properly represented, the decree is of no effect. This contention cannot be accepted because no such ground WP taken in the memo, of appeal. Again she is merely a pro forma defendant and she attained majority before the appeal was filed. This point was not canvassed before the learned. Subordinate Judge. So the appellant cannot be permitted to canvass this point.

( 7 ) IT has been next contended on behalf of the appellants that the guardianship of defendant No. 1 did not automatically cease on Kalibala's remarriage. Before the institution of the suit the plaintiff approached the District Judge, Midnapore, for removal of defendant No. 1 from the guardianship on the ground that Kalibala was remarried to one Bhutnath. But that prayer was turned down. It has been stated that the contingencies for cessation of guardianship have be