The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the appointment of a court guardian can be vitiated by fraud and is of no legal effect. The judgment also emphasizes the right to redemption without a demand for payment.

1. This is an appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Calicut in O.S. No. 30 of 1919 on his file dismissing the plaintiffs suit and the plaintiff is the appellant before us.

2. Plaintiff became the sole surviving member of his Komancheri Tarwad on the death of his mother and sister in March, 1907. He was then solely entitled to the tarwad properties. He was at the time a minor of 8 years age and his father the 2nd defendant who had previously managed the affairs of his tarwad as his mothers agent continued in management of his affairs as his de facto guardian. Being a member of a Marumakkatayam tarwad his father was not his legal guardian, in fact he had no legal guardian. At that time there was a mortgage debt on the tarwad lands m favour of one Bhattathiripad, of Rs. 9,000 which was admittedly binding. To pay off this debt and to meet other alleged necessities the father acting as plaintiffs guardian borrowed in March, 1908 a sum of Rs. 12,000 from the 1st defendant and executed a usufructuary mortgage to him-Copy, Ex. A. Two days afterwards he also executed a verumpattom chit or lease for himself and as plaintiffs guardian and took back the properties on lease; see copy Ex. G. Under this arrangement plaintiff was newly made liable with his father to pay a rent of Rs. 1,200 a year Such an obligation did not exist under the Bhattathiripads mortgage. The rent was allowed to fall into arrears by the 2nd defendant and he executed a pronote, copy Ex. T, for Rs. 692-12-u to the 1st defendant, again acting for himself and as guardian of his son. The 1st defendant brought Orders, No. 37 of 1915 on this note and got a decree against both the father and the son. In this suit the Head Clerk of the Court was appointed as the plaintiffs guardian Subsequently the 1st defendant attached the properties mortgaged to him subject to his own mortgage and got them sold and purchased them himself in Court auction.

3. Plaintiff brings this suit as a major and prays that the mortgage Ex. A may be declared to be invalid to the extent of Rs. 2,200 and odd as not being supported by proper consideration except as to. the amount due under the prior mortgage which had been paid off. He also prays for a declaration that the lease Ex. G. is not binding on him at all, as it is not for his benefit or necessity but on the other hand it imposed on him an onerous liability to pay Rs. 1,200 a year as rent. He states that the decree Ex. IX was obtained by fraud, that he was not represented in it by a proper guardian and the Court guardian appointed for him acted with gross negligence in the conduct of the case and he therefore claims that it is not binding on him; and he further prays that the sale held in execution of that decree may be set aside as invalid.

4. The first point taken against the plaintiff in the lower court was that at the date of suit he was a minor and the suit as brought without a next friend was unsustainable and must be dismissed. Plaintiff was over 18 years of age but below 21 when the suit was filed and the question whether he was a major or not turns on whether a guardian had been appointed for him under the Guardian and Wards Act. It is not very clear on the evidence whether such an appointment had been made. An application had been filed under the Act by plaintiffs uncle P.W. 2 and the District Judge had passed an order that the plaintiffs father the 2nd defendant would be appointed guardian of the plaintiffs person and property on his furnishing security. Though security was tendered no steps were taken by the Court to test it or get a proper security bond executed and no formal order of appointment was drawn up. Nevertheless in several subsequent court proceedings the 2nd defendant was treated as a properly appointed guardian for plaintiff; and it was also held that his age of majority had been extended to 21 in consequence. It is not however necessary to decide the point definitely for even assuming that the 21 yea