Judgment.- This appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of the suit property alleging that the sale deed executed by their mother in favour of their grandmother when their father was alive was not binding and that the defendants had no manner of any right, title or interest in the suit property. The facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are the following:- The plaintiff’s father one Karuppa Gounder got some family properties in the family partition, dated 29th November, 1936. He was also allotted certain debts which he was directed to discharge. The extent of the property allotted to him was about 8acres 83 cents and the debts amounted to about rupees two thousands. Soon after the partition he sold Kalingiam lands for discharging a portion of the family debts. He also executed a usufructuary mortgage, Exhibit B-3 in the case on 30th July, 1939, for a sum of rupees five hundred. Several suits were filed against him in 1939 and 1940 (vide Exhibits B-7’to B-9) for recovery of moneys. One Sinnammal filed one of such suits Original Suit No. 462 of 1939, on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Gobichettipalayam, for recovery of the mortgage amount against the plaintiffs’ father and obtained a decree and she was taking steps to bring his properties for sale. While matters were at that stage the plaintiffs’ father left the village without giving any information about where he was going. It may be mentioned that even at the time of the filing of the present suit his whereabouts were not known. The plaintiffs’ mother in order to save the estate from being proceeded against sold the suit property to her mother for the purpose of discharging he debts. The sale was on 5th December, 1941. Out of the sale price the plaintiffs’ grandmother discharged the debts of the plaintiffs’ father. The grandmother executed a settlement deed the very next day, that is on 6th December, 1941 in favour of her grandsons, the plaintiffs in the suit, giving them moiety of the property purchased by her. The other moiety was disposed of by the grandmother to the defendants in the suit for a sum of rupees four thousands in the year 1950. The grandmother died in or about 1958. The other moiety was disposed of by the grandmother to the defendants in the suit for a sum of rupees four thousands in the year 1950. The grandmother died in or about 1958. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit attacking the original sale deed executed by their mother in favour of their grandmother on the ground that it is not valid and binding on them. There is no controversy in regard to the debts incurred by the plaintiffs’ father and also the debts allotted to him at the time of the partition. It is also clear from the evidence on record that the whereabouts of the plaintiffs’ father were not known both at the time when the plaintiffs’ mother executed the sale deed and also at the time of these proceedings. The defendants resisted the Suit contending that the sale by the plaintiffs’ mother was binding on the plaintiffs. The learned District Munsif gave a finding that the sale deed is valid and binding on the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. But on appeal the learned Subordinate Judge, on the short ground that the plaintiffs’ mother cannot act as the plaintiffs’ guardian (de facto); while their father is alive, came to the conclusion that the sale deed executed by her is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs, with the result he decreed the suit. Now it is against this judgment and decree that the defendants "have preferred this appeal. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiffs’ mother in the circumstancs prevailing at the time of the execution of the sale deed could act as a de facto guardian and execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs’ grandmother. In other words, can a mother act as de facto guardian while her husband is alive, though his whereabouts are not known. As far as our High Court is concerned, no member of a family other than the father or the mother has been recognised as having the right of guardianship (vide Chennappa v. Onkarappa).1But the point arises whether the mother can be the guardian during the lifetime of the father. It is useful to refer to the following passage at page 64 in the Law Relating to Minors by Ernest John Trevelyan, 1906 edition. It is useful to refer to the following passage at page 64 in the Law Relating to Minors by Ernest John Trevelyan, 1906 edition. "On the death of the father, or in his absence, or in case of his having lost the right of guardianship, and in the absence of a valid appointment by him, the mother is entitled to the guardianship of her minor children." The learned author cites a case reporten in Modhoosoodun Mookerjee v. Jadub Chunder Banerjee2 . In that case the father filed a suit for a declaration that his daughter’s marriage should be cancelled as it was contracted with an inferior Brahmin without his consent. The marriage was effected during his absence by his wife. Dealing with the case the Court observed: "The father of the girl is a Koolin, visiting after lengthened absences the mother of his daughter The mother, in his absence, is her guardian, in straitened circumstances ; and she gave her in marriage, to a Brahmin of an inferior grade to the plaintiff for a consideration of 200 rupees and the ceremonies were all duly performed. Under these circumstances, we have no doubt that the marriage is indissoluble as laid down in the Vyvasta of the pundit." In Gunga Pershad v. Phool Singh1, a question arose whether a sale deed executed by a brother on behalf of himself and also as guardian of his minor brothers while their father was alive was binding on his minor brothers. The learned Judges observed: "But supposing that the father was alive at that time, it appears to me that, if Duryah Lall Was de facto acting in the matter as guardian of his brothers, the plaintiff’s title would not be bad so far as that objection is concerned." In Kundan Lal v. Beni Pershad2, Tek Chand J., held that a bona fide encumbrance made by a de facto guardian of a Hindu minor for the benefit of the estate cannot be impeached by the minor on attaining majority on the mere ground that the guardian who purported to act on his behalf was not a legal guardian under Hindu Law or a guardian appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act. The facts in that case reveal that the sale deed was executed by the paternal uncle of the minor plaintiffs while their mother who was their natural guardian was alive. The facts in that case reveal that the sale deed was executed by the paternal uncle of the minor plaintiffs while their mother who was their natural guardian was alive. Though the case reported in Arunachala Reddi v. Chidambara Reddi3, may not be a direct case, it may be useful to refer to it for the proposition that an alienation made by a de facto guardian will be valid if for necessity notwithstanding that there was a testamentary guardian in existence. It is, therefore, clear that the mother can act as de facto guardian during the life time of the father. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Subordinate Judge that the mother cannot act as a de facto guardian while the father is alive is not correct Once it is held that the mother can act as a de facto guardian she can sell the property for necessity and benefit and certainly the sale deed will be binding on the minor sons. The powers of a de facto guardian were elaborately discussed in the classical judgment of Mahajan, J., reported in Kondamudi Sri Ramulu v. Myneni Pundarikakshayya and Tadavarti Bapayya and others v. Myneni Pundarikakshayya4. It was held in that case that a de facto guardian can sell the property in case of necessity and the true test to be applied in deciding a case of alienation is one of necessity and not one of authority of the person doing the act. It was observed that "it is the necessity of the loan and the pressure on the estate that are the touchstones on which its. validity and binding character on the minor’s estate are judged." It is equally well settled that the powers of alienation of a de facto guardian under the Hindu Law are (he same as those of the lawful guardian. In the instant case both, the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have found that there was necessity for the mother of the plaintiffs to execute a sale deed in favour of her mother for the benefit of the plaintiffs. When once it is found that the mother can act as a de facto guardian and that there is necessity for the alienation, the plaintiffs" suit has to be dismissed. This appeal is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs. Leave granted. K.L.B. ------------- Appeal allowed.