The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of adverse interest of the guardian in a property dispute and its impact on the minor's estate.

JUDGMENT

Rankin, C.J. - The appellant, Shark Abdul Karira was defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiff Thakurdas Thakur to set aside a sale of certain property held in execution of a decree dated 6th June 1922 passed by the Small Cause Court. The plaintiff in the Small Cause Court suit was the respondent. Haji Meah Mahomed and he brought his suit against Sudhamoyee Dasi, mother of Thakurdas Thakur who was at that time a minor and against the minor himself. The suit was brought for the recovery of the balance of sum Rs. 2,000 which was the subject-matter of a document dated 23rd January 1919.

2. It appears that the father of the minor was one Ramlal who died in 1903. He left a son Kanai by a wife who had predeceased him, and Thakurdas Thakur was not at that time born. Sudhamoyee, however, after hi3 death gave birth to a posthumous son and under the will of Ramlal his property went to his two sons. A partition suit was brought in 1910 and as a result of that certain premises now in question No. 3/1 Marcus Square were allotted to the plaintiff. This process was complete in the year 1911. In these circumstances, the mother Sudhamoyee being apparently in need of money obtained advances from Haji Meah Mahomed in 1918 and early in 1919. Apparently the first advance was of Rs. 300, the second was of Rs. 100 and at the time of the document of 23rd January 1919 a further sum of Rs. 1,600 was advanced.

3. Now the document in question which was registered is in the form of a receipt and it is signed by Sudhamoyee without any further description than that she was the widow of Ramlal. The receipt purports to be a receipt for Rs. 2,000 on the term that the sum would be paid by deduction of Rs. 20 each month out of the rent payable by Haji Meah Mahomed for No. 3, Marcus Square the rent of which would not be enhanced until repayment of the full sum. It provided

If before payment of the said amount received Government acquire the land Haji Meah Mahomed will be entitled to be paid his money in the first instance from the compensation to be paid.

4. There are two characters which Sudhamoyee might be thought to be exercising in granting this receipt. She was the executor of her husbands' will and she was the natural guardian of Thakurdas. She did not at this time obtain any order from the District Court under the Guardians and Wards Act making her a certificated guardian. Some time after this transaction, namely, on lath September 1919, Sudhamoyee applied on the original side of this Court and obtained an order appointing bar guardian of the person and property of Thakurdas and by that order obtaina authority to execute a new lease of the premises to certain other lessees. A leas was sanctioned and a certain amount of money was obtained thereby At the time of obtaining the sanction of this lease no information was given to the Court about the transaction previously made with Haji Meah Mahomed. As a result of the second transaction it appears that the new lessee brought a suit against Haji Meah Mohamed for ejectment. The actual documents showing the result of that suit are not in evidence but there is certain evidence on the record from which it would appear that that suit was compromised, Haji Meah Mohamed going out of possession of the premises on receipt of Rs. 800. I should rather gather that in consideration of his vacating the premises he got a promise of Rs. 800 which afterwards he brought a suit upon.

5. In this position Haji Meah Mahomed commenced the suit in the Small Cause Court with which we are now concerned. The plaint in that suit is before us and it appears that the cause title of that suit describes the defendants thus:

Sudhamoyee Dabe widow of late Ramlal Thakur and Thakurdas Thakur, a minor by his mother and certificated guardian, the said, defendant 1,

6. I observe that this plaint is signed by a pleader. How any pleader, should be so ignorant as to suppose that this is the proper way to bring a suit against a minor and how any Cour