The central legal principle established is that a guardian's fiduciary duty towards the minor is analogous to that of a trustee, and any act prejudicial to the minor's interests constitutes a breach of trust.

1. Second defendant is the revision petitioner. Second defendant is made liable for mesne profits and costs as he is found to be in possession of the property under the first defendant. The respondent (plaintiff) sought to execute the decree against the second defendant. Second defendant filed S. A. 224 of 1978 claiming benefits under Kerala Debt Relief Act (Act 17 of 1977), hereafter referred to as the Act. That claim was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that the decree debt is not a debt covered by the Act. The Court below held that the decree liability arose out of breach of trust and hence it is not a debt coming within the purview of the Act.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the property which was allotted to her share. Possession of the property was given to the second defendant by the "first defendant who was plaintiff's guardian. The suit was decreed against both the defendants and it was during the execution proceedings that the second defendant claimed benefits under the Act.

3. Counsel for the second defendant submitted that the guardian of the plaintiff is not a trustee and so there is no question of any breach of trust and the Court below was not justified in passing the impugned order. It is contended that any act of omission or commission on the part of the guardian adverse to the minor's interests will not constitute a breach of trust. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that though a guardian is not a trustee as such, his position is analogus to that of a trustee he having fiduciary relationship with his ward and so breach of any duty on the part of the guardian would amount to breach of trust and hence the contention that S.2 (3) (c) of the Act has no application is not tenable.

4. The question to be considered is whether it would amount to breach of trust" if a guardian has acted prejudicially to the interests of the minor. As per S.3 of the Indian Trust Act, a trust is an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner and a breach of any duty imposed on a trustee, as such by any law for the time being in force, is called a breach of trust. Counsel for the second defendant submitted that in the case of a trust there will be vesting of property with the trustee and as there is no vesting of the minor's property so far as the guardian is concerned there cannot be any breach of trust. Counsel further submitted that a guardian appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act is not a trustee in the sense the term is defined in S.3 of the Indian Trust Act. It is argued that a guardian is only an agent entitled to act on behalf of the minor and so there cannot be any breach of trust for any lapse on the part of the guardian.

5. S.27 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 requires a guardian to deal with the minor's property as carefully as if it were his own. S.20 envisages fiduciary relationship between the minor and his guardian. The essential principle underlying S.20 is that a person in a fiduciary capacity shall not be allowed to take advantage of his position to the detriment of the minor. As the guardian stands in a fiduciary capacity vis-a-vis the minor, failure to perform any act in the interests of the minor by the guardian or commission of any act prejudicial to the minor's interests will amount to breach of trust. A guardian who stands in a fiduciary relation to his ward cannot ignore the intersets of the minor. He cannot act adverse to the paramount interest of the minor. The relationship between a guardian and his ward is very similar to that of a trustee and his beneficiary. S.39(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act provides for the removal of the guardian for the abuse of his trust. Though there is no vesting of the property of the minor with the guardian, the fiduciary relationship cannot be