The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers of the managing member of an undivided Hindu family to transfer a minor's interest are unaffected when he is not the guardian or next friend of the minor, as per Order 32 Rule 7, Civil P. C.

Leach, C.J.

1. These appeals raise the question which was left open by the Privy Council in Ganesh Rao v. Tuljaram Rao (1913) 36 Mad. 295, namely how far the act of a managing member of an undivided Hindu family may affect a party to a suit represented by another person as his next friend or guardian ad litem.

2. A Nattukottai Chettiar named Udayappa Chettiar had three sons, Raman, Kasi Viswanathan and Chellappa. Raman married Alagamma Achi, the appellant in Appeal No. 260 of 1942. He predeceased his father. Kasi Viswanathan married Umayal Achi, respondent 1 in Appeal No. 259 of 1942 and the only respondent in Appeal No. 260 of 1942. Chellappa married one Unnamalai Achi. He became of unsound mind and was represented in certain execution proceedings to which reference will be made in a moment by Unnamalai Achi as his guardian ad litem. On Umayal Achis marriage with Kasi Viswanathan, her stridhanam was invested in her father-in-laws firm. In O.S. No. 1693 of 1931 of the Chief Court of Pudukottah, Umayal Achi sued her father-in-law, her husband, her brother-in-law Chellappa and Vellayya (the son of Raman) to recover her stridhanam moneys. Udayappa Chettiar died during the pendency of this suit. On 29th April 1933 a decree was passed in favour of Umayal Achi for Rs. 45,795-1-0. The decree was subsequently transferred for the purpose of execution to the District Court of West Tanjore. In E.P. No. 61 of 1934 Umayal Achi attached a mortgage held by the family. Subsequently Velayyas one-third interest in the mortgage was released, leaving the interests of her husband and Chellappa. By this time Chellappa had become insane and it was in these proceedings that his wife Unnamalai Achi was appointed his guardian ad litem. The sale of their interests in this mortgage was fixed for 16th March 1936, but Kasi Viswanathan obtained a postponement until 19th March 1936. The next day he assigned his own one-third interest to his wife in part satisfaction of her decree and on 18tb March he assigned, as the manager of the family, Chellappas one-third interest. These mortgage interests were not sufficient to satisfy Umayal Achis decree in full and on 19th March 1936 partial satisfaction was entered up. There can be no doubt that in arranging for the postponement of the sale and in making these assignments in partial satisfaction of the decree Kasi Viswanathan was helping his wife to avoid any claim for rateable distribution by other creditors.

3. In O.S. No. 537 of 1933 of the Chief Court of Pudukottah Alagammai Achi, Ramans widow filed a suit against the members of the joint family to recover her stridhanam, which had also been invested in the family business. On 11th July 1936 she obtained a decree for Rs. 1,70,000. In O.S. NO. 1450 of 1933 of the same Court Udayammai Achi, a creditor of the family, sued to recover what was due to her and on 20th January 1936 she obtained a decree for some Rs. 27,000. This decree was likewise transferred for execution to the District Court of West Tanjore and on 16th March 1936 she obtained an order for attachment of the same mortgage rights. The attachment was effected on 17th April 1936. In the meantime, the assignment to Umayal Achi had taken place. In E.A. No. 303 of 1936 Umayal Achi applied for the removal of the attachment which Udayammai Achi had obtained. This application was successful and consequently led to Udayammai Achi filing O.S. No. 10 of 1940 in the Court of the District Judge, West Tanjore, out of which Appeal No. 259 of 1942 arises. On 10th November 1936 Alagammai Achi attached the mortgage rights and again Umayal objected with success. This resulted in Alagammai Achi filing O.S. No. 11 of 1940, out of which Appeal No. 260 of 1942 arises. In both the suits it was alleged that the decree obtained by Umayal Achi in O.S. No. 1693 of 1931 was obtained as the result of fraud and collusion, but the Court held that this was not so, and in this Court the validity of the decree has not been question