O'Kinealy and Gupta, JJ.
1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Ranchi, dated the 9th February 1897.
2. The defendant's father had given a bond for money to the plaintiff, and after he died one Akhaj Sahun was appointed guardian, under Act XL of 1858, of the minor and obtained a certificate. That certificate gives him all the powers he can exercise under the late Guardians and Wards Act. Under Section 27 of the present Act large powers are given to the guardian in relation to the property of the ward, but these powers are somewhat limited by Section 29. Before the passing of the latter Act, two kinds of guardians were acknowledged in our Courts, namely, a natural guardian and a certificated guardian, and the powers of a guardian who had obtained a certificate were more limited than those of the natural guardian. The present Act has somewhat enlarged the powers given under Act XL of 1858, but they are certainly not greater than those given to a natural guardian. The debt fell due and was acknowledged by the guardian Akhaj Sahun within the period of limitation, and the question we have now to decide is whether a guardian, under the Guardians and Wards Act, has the power under Section 19 of the Limitation Act to give a new period of limitation by a proper acknowledgment. A guardian is not ordinarily an agent. He has certain statutory powers in regard to the property under his management and no more. In some three decisions of this Court it has been decided that a natural guardian has not the power to acknowledge a debt so as to bind the minor under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. We can see no difference in regard to that section between a guardian who has obtained a certificate and one who has not.
2. We, therefore, decree the appeal and dismiss the suit with costs in all the Courts.