Transactions by a legal guardian, even if not beneficial to the minors or supported by consideration, are only voidable and require to be set aside under Art.44 of the Limitation Act.

1. A.S.1125/53 is an appeal by the first plaintiff in O.S. 94/49 against the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tellicherry, dismissing the suit so far as his claims were concerned.

2. A.S. 818/54 is an appeal by defendants 12 and 13 against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in the same suit disallowing certain reservations claimed by them.

3. O. S.94/1949 was filed by the appellant and her sister for partition of the suit properties into three equal shares, ignoring certain transactions entered into by their father and guardian, the second defendant and for allotment and delivery of two shares to the plaintiffs. They also asked for certain consequential reliefs.

4. The case of the plaintiffs was that the plaintiffs and the third defendant are the children of the second defendant by one Pathumma. The plaint item 1 of which the plaint item 2 formed part, was held by the second defendant in Kanom-kuzhikanom right under a Marupat dated 26-6-1930, Ext. Al from the first defendant. The second defendant has reclaimed the properties and has effected a lot of improvements on them. The terms were, that a sum of rupee 1/- is fixed as the Kanarthom and the rent was fixed at rupee 1/- and certain sundries. The term was fixed at 10 years.

5. The second defendant on 25-6-1931, under Ex. A2, assigned his rights under Ext. Al in favour of Pathumma who was his wife and also the mother of the plaintiffs and the third defendant. Pathumma died in or about 1934 and her rights devolved upon her children, the plaintiffs and third defendant, and her husband the second defendant and also on her mother one Biyyathu. The grand-mother surrendered her rights in favour of plaintiffs and defendant 3. On 12-3-1934, under Ex. A10, the second defendant assigned his share in the properties which devolved on him as heir of his wife, to his children the plaintiff and third defendant. On 16-5-1934, under Ex. A3, the second defendant as guardian of the plaintiffs and third defendant, surrendered their rights in the suit properties for Rs. 550/- in favour of the first defendant notwithstanding the fact that there were improvements in the properties to the extent of about Rs. 1,500/-. On the same date, under Ext. All, the first defendant granted a Kanom-kuzhikanom right in favour of the plaintiffs and the third defendant, represented by the second defendant as their guardian, for Rs. 550/-. The conditions under Ex. All were as follows: The term (a) was to be for six years; and (b) rent was Rs. 40/- and sundries. Again on 20-8-1938, under Ex. A12, the second defendant as guardian of the plaintiffs and the third defendant as a major, jointly surrendered their rights acquired under Ex. All, to the first defendant for Rs. 100/-. Further on 29-8-1938, under Ex. B3, the first defendant granted a lease of item 2 which is a portion of item 1 in favour of the third defendant for herself and as guardian of the minor plaintiffs.

6. The plaintiffs attacked the transactions entered into by their father-guardian under Exts. A3, All and A12 and also the transaction covered by Ex. B3 as not binding on them and as not supported by consideration. They further alleged that all these transactions are not beneficial to the plaintiffs and the transactions are all in excess of the authority of the second defendant as guardian of the plaintiffs who were minors. They further alleged that those transactions are not binding on them and that they are entitled to claim a partition ignoring those transactions.

7. The first defendant has filed a written-statement challenging the maintainability of the suit by the plaintiffs. He took a plea that the right of the plaintiffs to challenge those transactions are barred by Art.44 of the Limitation Act and that the plaintiffs have not taken any steps to challenge those transactions within the period stipulated therein, and as such their rights have become extinguished under S.28 of the Limitation Act. He also maintained