( 273 )
PONNAMPALAM t>. APPUKKUD1.1904-
C. B., Jaffna, 3,302 A.
jGuardian ad litem—Action against minor represented by guardian ad litem—
Fiscal's sale of minor's property—Effect of such sale.
The sale of a minor's property held under a writ of execution issuedin a case wherein the minor was represented by a guardian ad litem isgood and valid.
A guardian ad litem represents the minor not only for the purpose ofconducting the case, but also for purposes of a sale in execution of theminor’s property.* 9
H Hi plaintiff claimed by right of inheritance from one. 3?an-kamma, a minor, a portion of a land called Alvanvayal,
from which he alleged the defendant had unlawfully ousted him.
The defendant pleaded that the minor’s share, being put. up forsale under a writ of execution issued in case No. 17,789, D. C.,
Jaffna (to which the minor was a party, represented by hermother as guardian ad litem), was purchased by the defendant,and that the Fiscal conveyed the said share to the defendant on27th February, 1889.
At the trial, the only issue agreed between the parties waswhether the sale of the minor’s property under that writ was goodand valid. It was agreed that if this issue was decided in thenegative, the plaintiff should be declared entitled to inherit thesaid share from the minor, and if in the affirmative judgmentshould be given for the defendant and the sale under the writupheld.
The Commissioner, after hearing the arguments of counsel onboth sides, held that the sale, was valid and passed title to thedefendant.
The plaintiff appealed.
A. Drieberg, for the plaintiff appellant.
H. A. Jayawardene, for the defendant respondent.
11th July, 1904. Sampayo, A.J.—
The plaintiff claims a divided portion of a land called Alvan-vayal by inheritance from one Tankamma, who died in 1888intestate. The whole land Alvanvayal was the subject, of apartition suit, to which Tankamma, who was then a minor, was aparty represented by his mother as guardian ad lit An, and in thataction the divided portion was allotted to Tankamma as her sharein the partition. The Court decreed the costs of’ the action to beborne by the parties pro rata, and for the recovery of Tankam-ma’s share of the costs the ^portion of the land allotted to
( 274 )
Tsnkamma was seized and sold in execution, and was purchased,by the defendant in 1888.
There were a great many points raised in the pleadings, but atthe trial the parties agreed to submit for decision the singlequestion whether the Fiscal’s sale of the minor Tankamma’sshare of the land was valid. The Commissioner of the Court ofBequests having decided this issue in the affirmative and dismissedthe action, the plaintiff has appealed.
It was argued for the plaintiff that a guardian ad litem onlyrepresented the minor for the purpose of conducting the case, andnot for the purposes of a sale of the minor’s property, and theweljjjoipwn authorities on the limitation of a guardian’s powers inthe disposal of the minor’s property were cited in argument. Theseauthorities have. no bearing on the present question, for while theyrelate to the guardian’s own acts pver the minor’s property, theFiscal’s sale in this case took place in-consequence of the decreeof Court and by means of the process of Court.
In my view a guardian ad litem represents the minor for allthe purposes of the action, including the execution of the decreethat may be passed by the Court. No authority has been cited tothe effect that the sale of a minor’s property in an action wherethe minor is represented by a guardian ad litem is void. On theother hand, the case Hari v. Narayan (/. L. R. 12, Bomb. 427)shows that under the Indian Procedure Code the provisions ofwhich with regard to actions by and against minors are similarto those of our Code, execution of a decree against a minor may-be effected by process-in the ordinary way.
In my opinion, there is no good foundation for the contentionof the appellant, and I affirm the judgment with costs.
PONNAMPALAM v. appukkudy