Nama Nagayya vs Kalle Narasayya described as Kalle Narasimhayya in records of the lower Court

Madhavan Nair, J.—The plaintiff is the petitioner. In this revision petition we are called upon to consider the question whether an

acknowledgment of a debt made by a person described as de facto guardian of a minor would keep the debt alive against the minor which would

otherwise become barred. The de facto guardian is the son of the sister of the grandfather of the minor.

Section 19, Expl. 2 of the Limitation Act says that an acknowledgment to be effective against the person making it must be signed ""either

personally or by an agent duly authorised in his behalf"". Section 20 requires that effective payment must be made by the person liable to pay or by

his agent duly authorised in this behalf. Section 21 of the Limitation Act explains the expression ""agent duly authorised in this behalf"" and says ""in

Sections 19 and 20 ''it'' shall include in the case of a person under disability his lawful guardian, committee or manager, etc."" This sub-section was

introduced because there was a conflict of decisions as to whether a guardian of a minor was an agent within the meaning of Sections 19 and 20.

The question we have got to consider is whether the de facto guardian in the present case is an agent duly authorised to acknowledge this debt on

behalf of the minor.

It maybe stated at once that he is not a lawful guardian of the minor under the Hindu Law, nor has he been appointed a guardian by authority or

by a will. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the contention that the de facto guardian is lawful guardian relied mainly on two

decisions, one a decision of this Court and another a decision of the Patna High Court. The decision of this Court is reported in Tirappayya minor

by guardian B. Tirapayya Minor by guardian T. Ganjayya Vs. Mallidi Ramaswami, . That is a decision by a single Judge. In that case the learned

Judge, Bakewell, J., was of opinion that a person who is acting as lawful guardian, though not legally appointed, can bind the estate for necessary

purposes and that such a person is a lawful guardian within the meaning of Section 21. This decision no doubt supports the petitioner. The decision

in the Patna High Court is reported in Gita Prosad Singh v. Ragho Singh (1917) 40 I.C. 809. In that case payment of money due under a

mortgage bond was made by the de facto guardian of a minor in order to avoid the immediate bringing of a suit on the bond against the minor. The

question was whether the payment made would save the bar u/s 20 of the Act. The learned Judge has held that the de facto guardian would come

within the description of the term ""lawful guardian"" in Section 21. This also supports the petitioner''s case. The decision has got to be taken in

connection with the facts of the case. Both these cases were considered by a Bench of this Court in a decision reported in Jamula Narayana

Murthi and Others Vs. Nilambara Prudhvisinghi Santo and Others, . In that case Kumaraswami Sastri, J., who wrote the leading judgment

dissented from the view of Bakewell, J., in Tirappayya minor by guardian B. Tirapayya Minor by guardian T. Ganjayya Vs. Mallidi Ramaswami,

and explained the circumstances bearing upon the decision in Gita Prosad Singh v. Ragho Singh (1917) 40 I.C. 809. In that Patna case the person

who made the payment was no doubt the de facto guardian but the learned Judge pointed out that there was nothing tangible on the records to

show that he was not the lawful guardian. Reference is made in the judgment to certain suits and orders where he was described as guardian and it

was in such circumstances that the payment made by him would be an effective payment. Barring these three decisions no decision directly bearing

on the question has been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel. There is a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Bireswar

Mukerjee v. Ambika Charan Bhatiacharjea I.L.R.(1917) Cal. 630 which supports the contention of the defendant that a de facto guardian cannot

be considered to be lawful guardian within the meaning of Section 21 of the Limitation Act. This case also has been considered by the learned

Judges who decided the case in Jamula Narayana Murthi and Others Vs. Nilambara Prudhvisinghi Santo and Others, . We were referred to a

series of cases by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to show that alienations made by de facto guardians under the Hindu Law were held valid

if they were for the benefit of the minor. None of those cases have any bearing on the question. We are not concerned with the question whether

the alienation should be binding or not.

The question we have to consider is whether the person described as de facto guardian would come within the description of lawful guardian

within the meaning of Section 21 of the Limitation Act. As already stated he is not the natural guardian nor was he testamentary guardian. His

position strictly speaking is only that of an intermeddler of the estate of the minor. No doubt he may have been managing the estate of the minor

and probably he may have been managing the estate to the advantage of the minor as well. He remains an intermeddler all the same. By a constant

course of management, his position as that of an intermeddler cannot be converted into that of a lawful guardian. We accept with great respect the

reasoning of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in Jamula Narayana Murthi and Others Vs. Nilambara Prudhvisinghi Santo and Others, , which was

concurred in by Curgenven, J. For the reasons given by the learned Judge we hold that a de facto guardian cannot be considered to be a lawful

guardian within the meaning of Section 21 for the purpose of acknowledging a debt to keep it alive against the minor. In our opinion the decision in

Tirappayya minor by guardian B. Tirapayya Minor by guardian T. Ganjayya Vs. Mallidi Ramaswami, does not state the law correctly. As the suit

debt is therefore barred as it has not been acknowledged validly by the petitioner''s guardian, the suit was rightly dismissed by the lower Court.

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.