John Stanley, C.J. and Banerji, J.
1. The appellant is the daughter of one Mahmud Husain, who was a lunatic. She brought the suit out of which this appeal has arisen for possession of her share of the site of a house now in the possession of the defendant. Mahmud Husain, as we have said above, was a lunatic, On the 22nd of June 1867 his wife and mother executed a sale deed in respect of the land now in suit. The purchaser under that sale sold his rights to the defendant's father on the 19th of May 1877. After his purchase a house was built by the purchaser on the land, and it is alleged that the house is of considerable value. The present suit was brought by the plaintiff on the last day of the expiry of limitation calculated from the date of the lunatic's death. The Court below has found that the sale was effected by the mother and wife of the lunatic as his de facto guardians, and that the sale was for the benefit of the lunatic, debts due by him having been discharged with the proceeds of the sale. It is contended that the mother and the wife were not the legal guardians of the lunatic under the Muhammadan law, and it is urged that they had no power to sell the lunatic's property. It is true that under the Muhammadan law a mother is not the legal guardian of the property of her minor son, but it has been held that when she, acting as de facto guardian, deals with the property, the. transaction, if it is for the benefit of the minor, ought to stand. We may refer to the rulings of the Calcutta High Court in Majazzal Hosain v. Basid Sheikh (1906) I.L.R. 34 Calc. 36 and Ram Charan Sanyal v. Anukul Chandra Acharjya (1906) I.L.R. 34 Calc. 65 and to the ruling of this Court in Majidan v. Ram Narain (1903) I.L.R. 26 All. 22. In our judgment the decision of the Court below is right. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.