Ayling, J - (1.)The only substantial question in this appeal is whether the minor defendant s natural father Timmayya was entitled to represent his estate after the minor s adoption. If so, there can be no doubt that the suit promissory-note, Exhibit C, is binding on the estate and that the decree of the lower Appellate Court must be upheld.
(2.)The facts are these: Mr. M. Suryanarayana Rao, sole proprietor of the Waltair estate died on 31st March 1904, leaving a registered will. This will is not exhibited, but its provisions are admitted to be as set out in the plaint paragraph No. 3. That is to say, it authorized his widow to adopt the minor defendant and directed that until the adoption should be effected, defendant s natural father Timmayya should manage his estate as executor under the will and that after the adoption he should be the guardian of the minor defendant until the latter attained majority. Defendant was duly adopted on 12th December 1908. Subsequently, Timmayya, describing himself as the natural father and guardian of defendant, executed the suit promissory note.
(3.)Appellant argues that, once the adoption was effected the minor s adoptive mother, and not Timmayya, was his natural guardian, and that the appointment of a testamentary guardian to manage the minor s estate is illegal.