The main legal point established in the judgment is that an alienation by a natural guardian such as a mother will be voidable and not void, and the application of the Limitation Act to determine the time limit for a minor to sue for a declaration that a transaction is not binding upon them.

Curgenven, J.

1. These three appeals arise out of three suits tried together by the City Civil Judge. The advisability of trying O.S. No. 555 of 1929 (C.C.C.A. No. 18 of 1931) with the other two suits is open to question, but we propose to record our findings upon the issues which it raises quite separately. Certain facts may however be stated as common to the three cases.

2. We are concerned with a family of Indian Christians composed of Richard and Caroline Kent, husband and wife, and two daughters Sarah (Mrs. Borgonah) and Lydia. Richard Kent, who was an Inspector on the railway, owned a house, No. 6, Salai Street, Vepery, Madras, in part of which he was living up to the time of his death. The house consisted of two distinct portions, a front part and a rear part, and these figure separately in the later transactions. In 1913 Richard Kent executed two successive mortgages of the whole property to a Marwari Sowcar named Birchand for sums of Ra. 500 and Rupees 100 respectively. In 1914, under Ex. D, he made a gift of the property to his wife and daughters. In 1916 Birchand sued upon his mortgages (O.S. No. 422 of 1916) and obtained a preliminary decree. Thereupon, in spite of the gift deed, on 25th December 1916 Richard Kent executed an agreement to sell the front part of the house to one Muniswami for a sum of Rs. 1,500 and acknowledged an advance payment; of Rs. 100. Less than a month later, on 20th January 1917, Richard Kent died, and less than a month after his death, on 17th February 1917, the widow executed a sale deed, Ex. E, of the front part for herself and as guardian of her two daughters, to Muniswamis daughter Bangarammal for Rs. 1.500. Out of this consideration a sum of Rs. 1,150, as the receipts Exs. 5 and 5-A show, was paid, to Birchand in discharge of the mortgage debts of 1913 and of some smaller-loans advanced to Caroline. This sale is the subject matter of O.S. No. 555 of 1929. The plaintiff is Lydia Kent and she sued in forma pauper is for a declaration that it was not binding upon her and for partition and delivery of her one-third share in the property under the gift deed. It is probable that the elder daughter would have joined in this claim had she not allowed it to get barred against her. The lower Court has held that the gift deed, which was impugned as benami or nominal, was valid and that the sale is not binding upon the plaintiff, who has been given a declaration accordingly. The appellant is therefore the vendee, Bangarammal who was defendant 1 in the suit.

3. The grounds adduced for holding that the gift deed is nominal are, in view of the relationship between the parties, quite inconclusive, and it has been recognized before us that it is not open to the vendee to attack this document, forming as it does the title of the vendors relied upon in the sale deed. We agree with the lower Court in holding, that the plaintiff has a valid title under that instrument. The plea that the sale deed is not binding to the extent of the plaintiffs share is based firstly upon the contention that the mother was not in any circumstances competent to alienate her daughters property, and secondly, that if she was competent to do so in circumstances of necessity, such necessity has not been proved.

4. The powers of a mother, as guardian, in communities not governed by Hindu or by Mahomedan law do not appear to have formed the subject of express judicial decision. There are cases decided under Mahomedan and under Hindu law but the principles upon which they rest are not necessarily extensible to other communities. The Mahomedan law decisions exemplified by the Privy Council cases Mata Din v. Ahmad Ali (1912) 34 All. 213, Imambandi v. Mutsaddi 1918 P.C. 11 and Mohammad Ejaz Husain v. Mohammad Iftikhar Husaia 1932 P.C. 76, establish the proposition that a mere de facto guardian, i.e., a person who has charge of the minors person and property but has no legal claim to be the guardian, has no power to convey to anoth