VELAYUDHAM PILLAI Vs. PERUMAL NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOLLOWING Hanoomanpersaud Panday v. Musammat Babooee Munraj Koonweree 6 M.I.A. 393 at pp. 411, 412 : 18 W.R. 81n. : Sevestre 253n : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 29 : 1 Sar. P.C.J. 552 : 19 E.R. 147. and Murari v. Tayana 20 B. 286 we hold (especially having in view the description of the mortgaged property in Exhibit I as having been registered in the name of the mother as the guardian of her minor son) that that document was executed by her in her capacity as guardian of her son, though she is not so described in the body of the document. The case of Kamakshi Nayakan v. Ramasami Nayakan 7 M.L.J. 131 quoted by the appellants Counsel has been dissented from in Sivavadevelu Pillay v. Ponnammal 15 Ind. Cas. 365 : 22 M.L.J. 404 : 11 M.L.T. 198 : (1912) M.W.N. 383, and we have no doubt that Article. 44 of the Limitation Act applies to this suit and that it was rightly held barred by the District Court. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.