Chitambaresh, J.

1. A daughter questions the propriety of her Mahomedan father in having acted as her guardian in the alienation of her share in the property after she had attained puberty and married also thought was a minor. The issue needs to be resolved with reference to the exposition of Mahomedan Law by SIR DF Mulla edited by M. Hidayatullah and Arshad Hidayatullah followed by courts over decades.

2. The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Sooppy Haji who was the father of the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 and 2 under a registered deed (Document No.661/1942, S.R.O., Nadapuram). Sooppy Haji assigned his right over the property in favour of the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 and 2 under Ext.B1 sale deed dated 30.6.1957 at a time when the plaintiff and defendant no.2 were minors. Defendant no.1 who was the elder brother of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 acted as their guardian in getting executed Ext.B1 sale deed from Sooppy Haji. It was contended that defendant no.1 was holding the property as a co-owner for and on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 and hence the suit was laid for partition of one-third share.

3. Defendant no.1 contended that he had constructed a building in the property after obtaining consent from Sooppy Haji who was the legal guardian of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 at that time. It is his case that Sooppy Haji acting as the legal guardian of the plaintiff and defendant no.2 subsequently executed Ext.B2 sale deed dated 24.7.1962 in favour of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 asserting exclusive title had also executed Exts.B4 and B5 deeds dated 8.6.1982 and 25.6.1982 in favour of his wife and children impleaded as defendant nos.3 to 13. The suit for partition was resisted mainly on the ground that the plaintiff has no subsisting right over the property in view of Ext.B2 sale deed assigning her rights. The court below has accepted the contentions of defendant nos.1 and 3 to 13 and dismissed the suit against which the plaintiff has come up in appeal challenging the decree.

4. We heard Mr. G.Shrikumar, Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff and Mr. Parthasarathy, Advocate on behalf of the contesting respondents/defendants.

5. The plaintiff does not dispute Ext.B1 sale deed wherein defendant no.1 who was a major and her elder brother acted as her guardian in purchasing the property under which she obtained one-third right. But Ext.B2 sale deed wherein Sooppy Haji who was her father acted as her guardian in selling her one-third right in the property to defendant no.1 is very much in dispute. The plaintiff contends that she was married on 9.4.1959 (evidenced by Ext.A2 certificate issued by the Juma Masjid) and had become a major attaining puberty before Ext.B2 sale deed dated 24.7.1962. The plea in short is that the father of the plaintiff was ineligible to act as her guardian in Ext.B2 sale deed when her husband was available to act so. A 'minor' means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years as per Section 348 of the Mahomedan Law read with Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 applicable to one domiciled in India. The plaintiff was only 16 years of age on the date of Ext.B2 sale deed and hence a minor who could be represented by a legal guardian, court guardian or de-facto guardian. This is so notwithstanding the fact that the minority of a male or female is presumed to terminate when he or she attains puberty as per the pristine Islamic law.

6. The following persons are entitled in the order mentioned below to be guardians of the property of a minor as per Section 359 of Mahomedan Law:

(i) The father;

(ii) The executor appointed by the father's Will;

(iii) The father's father;

(iv) The executor appointed by the Will of the father's father.

It is clear therefore that Sooppy Haji as the father was competent to act as the guardian of the plaintiff in executing Ext.B2 sale deed conveying her one-third right over the property in favour of defendant no.1. A dut