Judgment :- 1. Second defendant is the revision petitioner. Second defendant is made liable for mesne profits and costs as he is found to be in possession of the property under the first defendant. The respondent (plaintiff) sought to execute the decree against the second defendant. Second defendant filed S. A. 224 of 1978 claiming benefits under Kerala Debt Relief Act (Act 17 of 1977), hereafter referred to as the Act. That claim was resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that the decree debt is not a debt covered by the Act. The Court below held that the decree liability arose out of breach of trust and hence it is not a debt coming within the purview of the Act. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of possession of the property which was allotted to her share. Possession of the property was given to the second defendant by the "first defendant who was plaintiff's guardian. The suit was decreed against both the defendants and it was during the execution proceedings that the second defendant claimed benefits under the Act. 3. Counsel for the second defendant submitted that the guardian of the plaintiff is not a trustee and so there is no question of any breach of trust and the Court below was not justified in passing the impugned order. It is contended that any act of omission or commission on the part of the guardian adverse to the minor's interests will not constitute a breach of trust. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that though a guardian is not a trustee as such, his position is analogus to that of a trustee he having fiduciary relationship with his ward and so breach of any duty on the part of the guardian would amount to breach of trust and hence the contention that S.2 (3) (c) of the Act has no application is not tenable. 4. The question to be considered is whether it would amount to breach of trust" if a guardian has acted prejudicially to the interests of the minor. 4. The question to be considered is whether it would amount to breach of trust" if a guardian has acted prejudicially to the interests of the minor. As per S.3 of the Indian Trust Act, a trust is an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, and arising out of a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him, for the benefit of another, or of another and the owner and a breach of any duty imposed on a trustee, as such by any law for the time being in force, is called a breach of trust. Counsel for the second defendant submitted that in the case of a trust there will be vesting of property with the trustee and as there is no vesting of the minor's property so far as the guardian is concerned there cannot be any breach of trust. Counsel further submitted that a guardian appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act is not a trustee in the sense the term is defined in S.3 of the Indian Trust Act. It is argued that a guardian is only an agent entitled to act on behalf of the minor and so there cannot be any breach of trust for any lapse on the part of the guardian. 5. S.27 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 requires a guardian to deal with the minor's property as carefully as if it were his own. S.20 envisages fiduciary relationship between the minor and his guardian. The essential principle underlying S.20 is that a person in a fiduciary capacity shall not be allowed to take advantage of his position to the detriment of the minor. As the guardian stands in a fiduciary capacity vis-a-vis the minor, failure to perform any act in the interests of the minor by the guardian or commission of any act prejudicial to the minor's interests will amount to breach of trust. A guardian who stands in a fiduciary relation to his ward cannot ignore the intersets of the minor. He cannot act adverse to the paramount interest of the minor. The relationship between a guardian and his ward is very similar to that of a trustee and his beneficiary. S.39(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act provides for the removal of the guardian for the abuse of his trust. He cannot act adverse to the paramount interest of the minor. The relationship between a guardian and his ward is very similar to that of a trustee and his beneficiary. S.39(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act provides for the removal of the guardian for the abuse of his trust. Though there is no vesting of the property of the minor with the guardian, the fiduciary relationship cannot be denied. Though the provisions under the Guardians and Wards Act do not provide for vesting of the property of the minor with the guardian as a trustee, the scheme of the Act shows that a guardian's responsibility is analogous to that of a trustee. That does not make him an express trustee. As the relationship between a guardian and minor is fiduciary in character, the guardian's obligations are based on a constructive as opposed to an express trust. Abuse of trust will necessarily lead to breach of trust. As the duties of a guardian to the minor are like that of a trustee to the beneficiary any act of omission or commission on the part of the guardian which is adverse to the minor's interest will amount to breach of trust. 6. Lord Romilly, M.R. in Mathew v. Brise (1851-14-Beau. 341) observed that the relation of guardian and ward is strictly that of trustee and cestui que trust. He said: "I look upon it as a peculiar relation of trusteeship, and this appears from the case of the Duke of Beaufort v. Berty. A guardian is not only a trustee of the property, as in an ordinary case of trust, but he is also the guardian of the person of the infant, with many duties to perform, such as to see to his education and maintenance." Relationship of guardian and ward resembles to that of a trustee and cestui que trust than that of principal and agent. The Bombay High Court in ILR 30 Bombay 591 (In re Cassumali Javerbhai Pirbhai) observed that guardians stand in a fiduciary position and the courts should be guided by the rules embodied in the Trust Act. 7. The Bombay High Court in ILR 30 Bombay 591 (In re Cassumali Javerbhai Pirbhai) observed that guardians stand in a fiduciary position and the courts should be guided by the rules embodied in the Trust Act. 7. Counsel for the second defendant relied on Linga Reddi v. Subbarami Reddi (AIR 1942 Madras 202) and contended that the words "arising out of a breach of trust" in S.4(f) of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 which are similar to S.2(3) (c) of the Kerala Act 17 of 1977 cannot cover any liability which is not in any way connected with a breach of trust. The above decision has no application to the facts of the case in hand. This was a case where a third party gave security for the due discharge by a person under a fiduciary relationship of his duties and the surety had incurred towards the beneficiary a contractual liability which is enforceable only in case the trustee committed a breach of trust. In that case the proximate or immediate basis of the surety's liability was contractual. That is not the position in this case. This is a case where on account of guardian's callous act the second defendant got possession of the property of the minor to his detriment. 8. In Amina Omma v. Melhiankutty Mathur (1970 K.L.T. 1006) a Full Bench of this court held that the word "trust" is not used in S.2(c)(iii) of the Kerala Agriculturists Debt Relief Act, 1958 in the restricted sense of a trust as defined in S.3 of the Indian Trusts Act, but has a wider connotation. In the above decision it was held that a receiver of court is a trustee for the parties interested of any money due from him as receiver and not accounted for by him and his obligation analogous to that of a trustee is sufficient to attract clause (iii) of S.2(c). A guardian's position towards the minor cannot in any way be different. A guardian's position towards the minor cannot in any way be different. As S.20 of the Guardians and Wards Act clearly states that a guardian stands in a fiduciary relation to his ward and as S.88 of the Indian Trust Act specifically provides that the advantage gained by a fiduciary must go to the benefit of the person for whom he was acting, the fact that possession of the property belonging to the minor was given to the second defendant by the first defendant would really amount to breach of trust and hence the former cannot contend that he is entitled to the benefit of Act 17 of 1977. There is no merit in the C.R.P. The C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs. Dismissed.