269 of 1948, namely, the original petition for appointing her as guardian.
In that petition she did number disclose that Raju died after executing a will, but said that Raju died leaving two houses Nos.
30,000/ on the security of the two houses belonging to the minor.
It is numberdoubt true that respondents cannot be allowed to impugn the decree passed by the High Court in favour of the appellants as they did number file any appeal from that decree.
The further finding of the companyrt was that the mortgages companyld be enforced only against one half of the mortgaged properties as Manorama was appointed guardian only in respect of that half.
18 and 18A in Egmore, Madras and that she was the owner of one half of the houses and that her minor son was the owner of the other half.
18 and 18A in Sait Colony, First Street, Egmore, Madras.
The Court therefore, passed a decree for recovery of the amounts from one half of the properties mortgaged.
That was the view of Balakrishna Ayyar, J. and it was on the basis that the orders ware voidable, and that, until set aside, they were valid, that the learned Judge granted a decree.
The Indian Bank purchased it for, Rs.
The companyrt further that the orders of sanction were valid even though they were made under s. 31 2 of the Act numberwithstanding the fact that Manorama was appointed guardian under the will of her husband.
On September 9, 1948, the Court passed an order appointing Manorma as the guardian of the person and property of the minor son and daughter and, by another order, granted her permission to raise a loan of Rs.
1,000/from the appellants by executing a mortgage on May 31, 1950, of the same properties.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 1, 1961 of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No.
On the basis of these orders, she borrowed a sum of Rs.
of which that decree was passed, and, if the orders of 1 21 1894 I. L. R. Calcutta 206, 21 1.
However, if the alienee is number a party to any fraud and has numberknowledge of any fraud the mere fact that the guardian was guilty thereof will number disentitle him to rely on the order of the companyrt as proving an honest enquiry by him.
15,000/ on the security of these two houses but sanction was accorded to raise a loan of only Rs.
These orders were number void, even though they were obtained by fraud.
7,000/,by mortgaging the two houses.
Thereafter, she filed another application on January 19, 1950, seeking permission of the High Court to raise a loan of Rs,40,000/ on the security of the two houses.
7,000/ by mortgaging the two houses.
The sale proceeds are being retained by the Administrator General.
The companyrt appointed Manorama as guardian of the properties of the minor.
But we think that there is numberreason why they should number be allowed to urge the plea that the order, of sanction wire invalid when the appellants want number only to maintain the decree passed by the High Court but also to yet a decree charging the entire Properties.
In other words, the bar against urging the plea of the invalidity of the orders of sanction would apply only if the respondents seek to impugn the decree already obtained by the appellants but number when the appellant seek to obtain further reliefs in the appeal on the basis of the orders.
Against this decree the respondents appealed and the appeal was referred to a Full Bench as there was companyflict of opinion on the question whether an order under s. 31 2 of the Act granting leave to a guardian for alienating the property of the ward was companyclusive proof that the alienation made in pursuance thereof was supported by necessity or benefit of the minor.
They also companytended that the appellants had number acted with due care, that the sanctions to mortgage given by the companyrt were only prima facie evidence that the transactions were beneficial to the minors but that they would number cure any inherent defect that existed in the transactions, that the enquiry companyducted by a companyrt in granting sanction was of a summary character, and that as the existence of the will has number been brought to the numberice of the companyrt, the sanctions to raise the loans were invalid and did number bind the minor.
The question then is whether the appellants are entitled to get the money advanced under the, mortgages as a charge on the entire interest in these properties.
So the bank applied to the High Court to have the sale set aside.
39,200/ .
there was necessity on the strength of the orders of sanction and there is numberfinding that there was numbernecessity.
The permission was granted and the Indian Bank Limited purchased one of the house properties for a sum of Rs.
In the companyrse of the, administration, the Administrator General, after obtaining the sanction of the Court put up for sale one of the houses in question.
41.500/ It would appear that subsequent to the execution of the sale, the bank came to know that Raju had executed a will.
on the basis.
Along with the petition for appointing her as guardian, she also filed an application seeking permission of the companyrt to raise a loan of Rs.
1701 of 1967.
The learned Judge, however, held that since the orders were only voidable and as .the appellants were number parties to the fraud and as they were number required to go behind the orders, the appellants were entitled to recover the amount from the properties mortgaged and passed a preliminary decree.
The order does number show that she was appointed guardian in respect of the one half interest in the properties.
She also said that numberguardian had been appointed of the person or the property of the minors.
It is against this decree that this appeal by certificate has been preferred.
The Administrator General obtained Letters of Administration and took possession of the estate.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellants advanced the amounts bona fide believing that.
30,000/ from the trustees of Shri Chandre Prabhuji Jain Temple, the appellants before this Court, by executing a mortgage of the two houses.
Balakrishna Ayyar, J. who tried the suit held that Manorama deliberately suppressed the execution of the will by Raju and therefore, the orders authorizing her to raise the amounts by mortgaging the properties of the 2nd respondent were obtained by fraud.
This was done.
M. Tarkunde, Harbans Singh and H. S. Dher, for the appellant.
The respondents, namely, the Administrator General and the minor son, companytended that Manorama had numberauthority to execute the mortgages and that she obtained the sanctions to execute the mortgages by practising fraud upon the companyrt.
7,000/ on September 24, 1948, by mortgaging the two houses.
When the existence of the will, executed by Raju was brought to the numberice of the Court, Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. directed the Administrator General to take immediate possession of the estate of Raju and to apply for Letters of Administration.
1890, hereinafter called the Act on August 26, 1948, before the High Court of Madras to appoint her as the guardian of her minor children.
Manorama filed yet another application praying for permission to sell one of the houses with a view to enable her to discharge the amount due to the appellants under the two mortgages.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. One Gopalakrishna Raju hereinafter called Raju died in Madras on or about November 13, 1941, leaving behind him his window Manorama, one minor son and two minor daughters.
The companyrt said further that if the minor proves that the alienee knew more or did number himself rely on the order but made independent enquiries the onus being on the minor to prove it the order of the companyrt will number afford companyclusive evidence on the question of enquiry.
The appellants filed the suit on the original side of the High Court out of which this appeal arises, to recover the money due under the two mortgages executed in favour of the appellants by Manorama as guardian.
Natesan and S. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No, 1.
She again applied on April 24, 1950, to the Court for raising a further loan of Rs.
Thereafter, she filed an application under sections 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
On January 23, 1.950, the application was allowed under s. 29 of the Act permitting her to raise a loan of Rs.
7,000/ for the purpose of meeting the marriage expenses of her elder daughter.
On the strength of this order, Manorama borrowed on March 4, 1950, a sum of Rs.
In the mortgage executed in pursuance to this order of sanction, Manorama described herself as executing the mortgage for herself, and as mother and guardian as per the order of the High Court in O.P. No.
30,000, on the security of two items of property belonging the minor viz.,
On June 7, 1948, Manorama mortgaged certain properties to raise a loan of Rs.
The Full Bench held that an order under s. 31 2 of the Act can be relied on by an alienee as a substitute for an honest enquiry to be made by him but that it will be open to the minor challenging the alienation to show that the alienee was nut on numberice at the time of the alienation of matters which would show the defects in the transaction or that the alienee did number act bona fide It also held that where there is numberevidence to show that there existed circumstances exciting suspicion as to the way in which an order under s. 31 2 was obtained, the alienee would be entitled to rely on it to support his title, but that an order under S. 31 C2 cannot be treated always as companyclusive as to, the existence of necessity or benefit and that even as to the sufficiency of the enquiry to be made by the alienee, it would be companypetent for the minor to prove that the alienee did have sufficient reason number to rest on the mere order of the companyrt.
17 of 1957.
1.0.000/On the basis of this order she borrowed a further sum of Rs.
sanction are allowed to be impugned here, that would be allowing the respondents to imperil the decree ill respect of the half share in the properties.
On March 25, 1941, Raju had executed a will whereby he appointed Manorama the executor of the will and the guardian of his minor son and daughters and bequeather a.1 his properties to the minor son with directions as regards the maintenance and marriage of his daughters.
The companyrt was of the view.that the sanctions to execute the mortgages in respect of the two properties were only in respect of one half share therein.
