JUDGMENT

Mackney, J - The appellants are the children of the respondent, Maung Po Toke, by his first wife, Ma Thin, who died in November or December 1921. Ma Tin Htwe, the third respondent, is a daughter of Maung Po Toke by his second wife, Ma Saw Tin, whom he married about three months after the death of Ma Thin. In the suit from which this appeal arises the first respondent, V.R.M.A.L. Firm, sued Maung Po Toke, the appellants, Ma Tin Htwe, and the P.R.P.L.S. and R.M.P.M. Firms, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,000, due on a mortgage bond. The mortgage bond was executed on 17th June 1928, by Maung Po Toke, purporting to act for himself and as guardian of his minor children. (Of these children, Maung Pyu Gyi is now a major.) The property mortgaged consisted of three pieces of paddy land, together with a house and out-houses. It seems that on the same date Maung Po Toke executed another mortgage of the property to P.R.P.L.S. Firm and that on 31st July 1929 he sold the paddy lands to the said P.R.P.L.S. Firm on the understanding that they were to pay off the V.R.M.A.L. mortgage. He further mortgaged the house to the P.R.P.L.S. Firm for Rs. 10,000. The P.R.P.L.S. Firm have given the R.M.P.M. Firm an equitable mortgage of these properties. The appellants in the lower Court pleaded that their father, Maung Po Toke, had no authority to mortgage their share of the properties in question, which became vested in them on there-marriage of Po Toke with Ma Saw Tin. Various other matters were put in issue, but the lower Court in the end held that as the mortgage was in the interests and for the benefit of the minors it was binding on them. The plaintiffs were granted a decree for sale in default of redemption, but liberty was given to the 7th and 8th defendants, P.R.P.L.S. and R.M.P.M. Firm, to redeem the mortgage. The children of Maung Po Toke by Ma Thin have now appealed on the ground that the lower Court had erred in holding that the appellants had no interest in the property and that the mortgage was for their benefit and bad been valdily created by Maung Po Toke on their behalf. My learned brother, sitting as a Single Judge, decided in Maung Thin Maung v. Ma Saw Shin 1933 Rang. 83, that:

Burmese Buddist Law does not recognize guardians of the property of minors A de facto or a natural guardian of a Burmese Buddhist minor cannot validly dispose of or encumber in any way the property of his ward. To be enabled to do so a person must first apply to be appointed guardian, and obtain the sanction of the Court under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act.

2. This decision was affirmed by a Bench of this Court composed of Cunliffe, Offg. C.J., and my learned brother, in the decision in C.T.V.E. Vyravan Chettyar v. Ma Saw Mwe 1933 Rang. 403. In the judgment of Cunliffe, Offg. C.J., reference was made to an unreported case of Garr, J. Ranja Khan v. Ma Chit 1931 Rang. 178, which expressed a similar view. In view of this decision of a Bench of this Court, with which I find myself in complete agreement, the law on this point may be taken to be settled, and I do not propose to discuss it further. It is however necessary in this connexion to deal with a point which has been raised by the learned advocate for the first respondent. He has drawn attention to the case of Bon Kwi v. S.K.R.S.K.R. Firm 1930 P.C. 26. This is a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in a case where a Chinese Buddhist, resident in Burma, had died intestate in 1917, possessed of properties in Burma. He left surviving him a Burmese wife and sons by a deceased Chinese wife. The widow, without obtaining a grant of letters of administration, administered her husband's estate on behalf of herself and her sons. In the course of so doing she, in 1921, mortgaged a part thereof to secure advances which were necessary for the purpose of the estate and were applied for its benefit. Their Lordships held that upon the above facts the mortgage was binding upon the estate. Thei