The existence of an order under S. 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act, granting leave to a guardian for alienating the property of the ward, is not conclusive proof that the alienation made in pursuance thereof is supported by necessity or benefit to the minor.

S. Ramachandara Iyer, C.J.

(1) This appeal which arises from the judgment of Balakrishna Aiyar J. Granting a decree in favour of the respondent on the food of two mortgages of the respondent on the foot of two mortgages dated 4-3-1950 and 31-5-1950, has been placed before us on account of conflict between the decisions in N. Venkataswami v. R. Veeranna, ILR 45 Mad 429: AIR 1922 Mad 135 and Raman Chettiar v. Thirugnanasambandam Pillai, ILR 50 Mad 217: AIR 1927 Mad 233. Before considering the correctness or otherwise of the decisions referred to above, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts which have given rise to this appeal.

(2) One Gopalakrishna Raju, who owned substantial properties, died on 13-11-1941, leaving behind him two widows, Lakshmi and Manorama, and three children born of the latter,-a son, who is the appellant in this appeal, and two daughters. A few months before his death, Gopalakrishna Raju executed, and duly registered, a will, bequeathing his properties substantially to the appellant. Lakshmi was given a life interest in a few Immovable properties in Tirunelveli Dt. Maonorama, the second wife, was appointed the executrix under the will. The will made it clear that Monorama should have no power to sell, mortgage or otherwise alienate the Immovable properties left by the deceased. The executrix was not given any beneficial interest in the properties beyond a right to be maintained befitting her dignity and status. No probate or letters of administration were taken of the will. Manorama who was in possession of the properties asserted that she, as the widow of the deceased, was entitled to half of the properties left by him, and that she, as the natural guardian of the minor son, was entitled to remain in possession of the properties.

On 7-6-1948, she mortgaged certain properties to raise a loan of Rs. 7000 for the purpose of the marriage of her first daughter. About two months thereafter, she filed O.P. No. 269 of 1948 on the original side of this court, praying that she might be appointed as the guardian of her minor children and seeking permission of the court to raise a loan of Rs. 20,000, for discharging the debts till then incurred and for the celebration of the marriage of here second daughter. She suppressed in the petition the existence of the will stating that Gopalakrishna Raju died intestate and that the loan was necessary for purposes binding on her son. Along with the petition, she also filed appln. No. 2595 of 1948, seeking permission to raise the loan on the mortgage of the properties. Subba Rao J. Passed an order on 9-9-1948 appointing Manorama as the guardian of the person and properties of the minors.

The learned Judge passed another order in the accompanying application giving leave to her to raise a loan of Rs. 7000 on mortgage of two houses belonging to minors, Armed with the order, she executed a mortgage and borrowed a sum of Rs. 7000 on24-9-1948 from one Raja Lakshmi Ammal. Within a short time thereafter, she filed appln. No. 4689 of 1949 seeking the sanction of the court to raise a loan of Rs. 40,000; but, in the affidavit that followed the application, the amount was restricted to Rs. 30000. On 23-1-1950 Rajagopalan J. Granted leave to her to raise a loan of Rs. 30000 on the security of two houses. The loan was intended to discharge the two earlier mortgages and pay off the other liabilities said to have been incurred by her. The learned Judge while granting the sanction, observed that there were debts contracted by the guardian which would bind the estate of the minor.

On the strength of this order, Manorama borrowed on 4-3-1950 a sum of Rs. 30000 from the respondent, the trustee of Sri Chandra Prabhuji Jain Temple, after executing a mortgage of the two items of properties referred to earlier. Manorama's need for money was evidently insatiable. Within a few days after borrowing this large sum of money, she applied to this court again in Appln. No. 754 of 1950 for raising a