Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. This is a suit for setting aside a sale made by the plaintiffs guardian in the year 1889. The suit was instituted on the 28th October 1908. The plaintiff was born on the 28th October 1887. He delayed the suit until the last day on which it was open to him to institute it. The sale was admittedly made for the discharge of certain debts due by the plaintiffs father.

2. Both Courts have upheld the sale. The District Munsif found that the sale was necessary in the interests of the minor. On appeal the Subordinate Judge seems to have confirmed the decree with some hesitation. He observed "I am unable to hold that with prudent management the debts could not have been cleared from out of the income." He also held that there was no clear necessity to support the sale. With respect to a plea of the defendants that the guardian had to take into account at the time of the sale the fact that two sisters of the plaintiff had shortly to be married, the Sub-Judge says "The prospective marriages of daughters of the family and the consequent fear of not being able to clear off debts are too speculative reasons to justify a sale by a mother during the sons minority." He ho