Bench:
Natesan
Issue:
Can a guardian be appointed by the donor of property?
Facts:
• The suit properties belonged to Anjalai Ammal wife of Arumugam Padayachi. He is the putative father of the respondents.
• The respondent is the children of Arumugam Padayachi and his concubine Marimuthu Ammal.
Enroll in the Course on: Complete Hindu Laws MasterClass - Click Here
• As Anjalai Ammal had no male issue, she settled the properties on the minor through a settlement deed dated 25-10-1955.
• Through the deed, Arumugha Padayachi was referred to as their protector, father, and guardian. The properties which had been settled on them were on their behalf placed in possession of their guardian.
• Arumugha Padayachi alienated the properties.
• The children filled a petition for possession of the property.
• Trail court held the transaction invalid.
• Then the petitioner filed an appeal in HC.
Appellant's Contentions:
• Application of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is erroneous in the present case.
• Arumughai Padayachi has been specially appointed guardian under the settlement.
• He is a legal guardian and not a de facto guardian.
Respondent's Arguments:
• Arumughati cannot alienate the property as he is not a legal guardian.
• As Mother is alive, she is the natural guardian of the children.
Judgment:
• The court questioned the validity of the appointment of the guardian by Anjalai Ammal as she is a total stranger.
• Moreover, under Section 6 mother is the natural guardian of an illegitimate boy. As she is alive, she will be the natural guardian of the petitioner.
• The court held that as Arumughai Padayachi is guardian neither appointed by the will of the minor's father, nor by the court so he is a de facto guardian.
• The court ruled that gifting of property by person to a minor will not entitle that person by reason of the factum of the gift only to appoint a guardian for the minor in respect of that property. It will be open to the donor to provide for the management of the property gifted by resorting to a trust. In the present case, Anjalai Ammal is a stranger and it is inconceivable that she could appoint another person with the character of a guardian of the property of the minors when she herself is not one.
• Thus the court held the alienation of the property by Arumugha Padayachi void and cannot bind the minors.
