1. [S.A. 1406] - The plaintiff in this case prays for a declaration that a sale of the plaintiff's property by his mother as his guardian is not binding on him, and for possession and mesne profits. Both the lower courts have held that the plaintiff failed to adduce sufficient proof of his age; and the question for decision is whether the period of limitation is 12 years from the date of alienation in 1904, under Article 144, or 3 years from the date of the plaintiff's majority under Article 44, of the Limitation Act, 1887. We are of opinion that the case falls within the decision of the Privy Council in Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram I.L.R. (1899) M. 279 which was followed by this court in Madugula Letchiak v. Pally Mukkalinga I.L.R. (1907) M. 593 and that Article 44 applies. In view of these decisions we are unable to follow the cases in Unni v. Kunhi Amma I.L.R. (1890) M. 26 and Kamakshi Nayakan v. Ramasami Nayakan (1896) 7. M. J. 131. We may point out that in Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram I.L.R. (1899) M. 279, the sale by the minor's guardian was held to be void and incapable of passing any title to the purchaser, while the ground of the decision in Unni v. Kunhi Amma I.L.R. (1890) M. 26 was that such a sale deed may be treated as non-existent, and the remedy of the minor is to sue for possession and not to set aside the sale.
2. The judgment in Unni v. Kunhi Amma I.L.R. (1890) 14 M. 26 is obiter as regards a sale by minor's guardian which is the case specially provided for by Article 44, and no other authority appears to have been considered in the case reported in the Madras Law Journal.
3. The second appeal fails and is dismissed.
[S.A. 1424].-Second Appeal No. 1424 of 1910 follows Second Appeal No. 1406 of 1910 and for the like reasons as are recorded in our judgment therein, we dismiss this appeal also With costs.