JUDGMENT Harries, C.J. - The only point in this Second Appeal is whether the learned District Judge's view on the question of limitation is correct. 2. In this case there were transfers of a Mahomedan minor's property by a mother and a brother, neither of whom were certified guardian. It has been held that a mother or a brother as a natural guardian has no right whatsoever to transfer the property. The learned Judge was of opinion that with regard to the property transferred by the mother the claim was barred by limitation, because the suit was brought more than three years after the minor had attained majority. With regard to the property transferred by the brother the suit was brought within twelve years of the date of transfer. It has been urged that the suit should have been brought within three years of the date of attaining majority and that Article 44 of the Limitation Act applies. There is no direct authority on the matter in this Court, but other Courts have held that, where there is a transfer by an unauthorised person acting as a guardian, it is not a case falling within Article 44, but is a case where the limitation would be twelve years from the date of the transfer or three years from the date of attainment of majority, whichever is longer. Although there is no authority of this Court, there is nothing to suggest that the view of this Court is contrary to the view of other Courts. I am bound to accept the view of other Courts and to hold that Article 44 does not apply and that the learned District Judge was right. 3. No other point has been taken and the result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.