High CourtsDivision Bench(1914) 03 MAD CK 0007

Koppara Kandiyil Changan Mancheri vs Anthalathil Kalleri Katheesa and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 March 1914 · Citation: AIR 1914 Mad 150(1) : 24 Ind. Cas. 871

HON’BLE JUDGES
Seshagiri Aiyar, J · Sadasiva Aiyar, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 200 words
1.

The plaintiff is the appellant in this case. He wants to enforce against the defendants No. 2 to 5 (children of the 1st defendant) a mortgage-deed

executed by the 1st defendant as their guardian.

2.

The plaint assumes that the 1st defendant was the de jure guardian of the defendants Nos. 2 to 5 when she executed the mortgage-deed, but it

is now admitted that she was not the de jure guardian of the minors.

3.

Then it is argued that she was the de facto guardian. Even if she was, her document could not bind, the minors unless it was executed for

meeting such urgent necessity or for securing such clear and undoubted benefit to the minors as are held to be necessary to be proved in

Hyderman Kutti v. Syed Ali 15 Ind. Cas. 576 : 23 Mad. L.J. 244 : 12 M.L.T. 147 : (1912) M.W.N. 889. No foundation was laid on the plaint

for any such case and having looked into the evidence of the only two witnesses examined on the plaintiff''s side, we find no such necessity or

undoubted benefit established by that evidence.

4.

The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.