Short Note : The facts in brief leading to the present appeal are that the plaintiff Lallolal filed a suit for possession of a plot No. 207 located in Ojha Ward, Mandla against the defendants 2 to 5 and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and in particular the defendant No. 1 from erecting any building over it. According to the plaintiff his mother Mst. Phuljhar had no right or title to sell the suit property as she lost her right and interest in the property of the deceased husband after her remarriage. As she effected the sale of the suit property in favour of defendants 2 to 4 for a consideration of Rs. 600/- and subsequently their father Nathulal as guardian disposed of the property in favour of defendant No.1 and also parted with the possession, the plaintiff therefore, brought the present suit on the basis that he was minor and the alienation on the part of Mst. Phuljhar was not binding on him. 2. The suit was contested by defendants 1 to 4 while the defendant No. 5 remained absent and the case proceeded ex parte against him. The case of the contesting defendant was that Mst. Phuljhar was guardian of the plaintiff and as such appeared to have disposed of the suit property for the benefit of the plaintiff who was then minor. The sale by defendant No.1 was protected on the basis that it was for legal necessity and the present suit was barred by time. 3. The trial Cont decreed the suit of the plaintiff for the price of half of the land sold. The first appeal by defendants was dismissed. Hence this second appeal. Held : Having heard learned counsel of the parties, I am of opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and it must be dismissed. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant No.1 was that the lower appellate Court was not right in holding that after remarriage the widow loses her right of guardianship over her minor children by her deceased husband. But on a perusal of the judgment I find that the lower appellate Court has nowhere stated like that All that has been mentioned by the lower appellate Court in para 11 of its judgment was that by remarriage the widow lost her preferential right of the guardianship over the plaintiff. But on a perusal of the judgment I find that the lower appellate Court has nowhere stated like that All that has been mentioned by the lower appellate Court in para 11 of its judgment was that by remarriage the widow lost her preferential right of the guardianship over the plaintiff. This view cannot be said to be wrong. It appears that the learned counsel lost sight of the words 'preferential right' and understood the paragraph as depriving the widow totally to act as guardian of her minor child by her first husband. But that was not what was decided by the Court below. It cannot be doubted that the mere fact that the mother has remarried is no disqualification for her to act as a natural guardian of the minor. But the point that is relevant for consideration in this case would be whether, in fact, the minor plaintiff was under the custody of her mother Mst. Phuljhar even after her remarriage and she was acting as his guardian. The lower appellate Court has discussed the evidence on record dealing with this aspect in sufficient details and came to the conclusion that there was overwhelming evidence on record to show that plaintiff was not under the custody of her mother after her remarriage nor the mother was looking after the welfare of her minor son (plaintiff). The plaintiff had been living with his brother-in-law after the remarriage of his mother. Therefore, it was rightly held by the Court below that Mst. Phuljhar was not acting as guardian of her minor son (plaintiff) at the relevant time when she effected alienation of the suit property. 4. The second contention of the learned counsel was that the present suit would be time barred having not been filed within three years of attaining majority in view of the provisions of Art.60 of the New Limitation Act which is equivalent to Art.44 of the Old Act. It may be mentioned here that the provisions of this Article would be applicable only to set aside the transfer of property by a guardian of the ward. Since in the present case Mst. Phuljhar was held not acting as guardian of the minor the suit cannot be held to be barred on the basis as tried to be contended. It may be mentioned here that the provisions of this Article would be applicable only to set aside the transfer of property by a guardian of the ward. Since in the present case Mst. Phuljhar was held not acting as guardian of the minor the suit cannot be held to be barred on the basis as tried to be contended. In this case the alienation being not by guardian the suit of the plaintiff would be governed by Art.144 of the Old Limitation Act and since the suit was filed on 19-10-1964 within twelve years of the alienation dated 17-07-1954 when Mst. Phuljhar effected the sale of the suit house in favour of defendants 2 to 4, the suit was well within time and, accordingly, even this contention is rejected having no force. Appeal dismissed.