Ryves and Lyle, JJ.
1. Musammat Said-un-nissa, plaintiff No. 1, is the mother of the plaintiffs Nos. 2--6. Of these, Zia-ul-Islam was a major and the rest were minors. Some property belonging to them was under attachment and had been advertized for sale in execution of a decree obtained against Sultan-ul-Haq, the deceased husband of Musammat Said-un-nissa and the father of the remaining plaintiffs. The mother was anxious to sell the property by private contract and applied to the District Judge to be appointed a certificated guardian of her minor sons. This application was granted on the 29th of July, 1911. On the 2nd of September, 1911, Babu Ram applied to the court for leave to purchase the property for Rs. 5,000. The Judge passed an order that 'the applicant, plaintiff No. 1, is allowed to sell the shops at least for Rs. 5,000 to Babu Ram or anyone else who may offer a higher price. The draft of the deed should be filed for the approval of the court.' This order was passed on the 15th of September, 1911. Subsequently a draft deed was prepared and was filed by the plaintiffs in the District Judge's court and the District Judge approved of that draft on the 31st of October. In that deed, the two major plaintiffs agreed to execute a sale-deed of their own shares, while Musammat Said-un-nissa entered into a similar contract as guardian of the minors for the sale of their shares in the property. This draft must be considered as an acceptance by the plaintiff of Babu Ram's offer to purchase the property for Rs. 5,000, and this acceptance, as found by the lower court, was duly communicated to Babu Ram. Subsequently, Babu Ram failed to carry out the contract and, in the remit, the property was sold by auction and realized less than Rs. 5,000. This suit was brought to recover the difference between what was realized and the sum of Rs. 5,000 which Babu Ram contracted to pay for it, by way of damages for breach of contract. The first court decreed the suit with the exception of Rs. 250, which sum was claimed as costs involved in the auction-sale, on the ground that the alleged damage on this head was too remote. There was an appeal and a cross-objection before the learned District Judge. Ho dismissed the appeal, but allowed the cross-objection with reference to this sum of Rs. 250.
2. Before us it has been argued, first, that there was no complete contract between Babu Ram on the one hand and the plaintiff, Said-un-nissa, on the other. As we have already said, we have a finding of the learned District Judge on this point which is conclusive. It was then argued on the authority of Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin Mahomed Chowdhuri (1912) I.L.R. 39 Calc., 232 that the plaintiff could not make a valid contract for sale of this immovable property on behalf of the minors. In the case in I.L.R., 39 Calcutta, what was laid down was that the manager, with whom their Lordships were then concerned, could not bind the minor or the minor's estate by a contract for purchase of immovable property, and that, as the minor was not bound by the contract, there was no mutuality, and that the minor, who had attained majority at the date of suit, could not claim specific performance. It was not shown in that case that the manager was the certificated guardian of the minor, and, even if he was, that he had obtained sanction of the court under Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act to enter into a contract on behalf of the minor. A certificated guardian's powers are regulated and defined by Statute, namely, the Guardians and Wards Act. In the present case, the contract was entered into by a certificated guardian after receipt of the Court's sanction and the suit is for damages for breach of a contract so entered into. In our opinion the Privy Council ruling does not apply to the facts of the present case. We do not think the Privy Council ruling applies to guardians appointed by Statute, such as the Guardians and Wards Act or the various Court of Wards Acts. The third objection taken is that the lower court should not have allowed the item of Rs. 250. In our opinion, for the reasons given by the lower court, its decree was justified. We dismiss the appeal with costs.