1. The lower Appellate Court has decided the appear on the single ground that the suit is barred by Article 44 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act which runs as follows: 'By a ward who has attained majority, to set aside a transfer of property by his guardian.' It has been held by the Privy Council in Gharib-ullah v. Khalak Singh 25 A 407 : 30 I.A. 165 : 5 Bom. L.R. 478 : 7 C.W.N. 681 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 483 that there cannot be a guardian of a minor's interest in an undivided Hindu family, for the simple reason that such an interest is not individual property at all. Mr. Narasimham argues that this ruling only applies to the appointment of a guardian by a Court. But the reason applies with equal force to the case of a person claiming guardianship by natural right. Applying this rule we must hold that the sale of the minor plaintiff's property by J. Panda under Exhibit I was not the act of a guardian of property, whatever it purported to be: and following Kathaperumal Thevan v. Ramalingj, Thevan 27 Ind. Cas. 695 : 17 M.L.T. 138 that Article 44 has no application to the present suit for a declaration that the sale is not binding. It is not shown that the suit is barred under any other Article. And we must, therefore, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and remand the appeal for disposal on the merits.
2. Costs will abide and follow the result.