JUDGMENT Varghese Kalliath 1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit for partition. There is no serious dispute regarding partition except with regard to one item of property. This item was found to be partible by the court below. The item now in question is item No. 1 2. Admittedly item No. 1 has been obtained under Ext. A1, a marupat by the father of the plaintiff and 1st defendant. The father was acting as guardian of the plaintiff and 1st defendant. It was contended that the plaintiff and 1st defendant are not the owners of this item and that the property continued to be the property of their father and that the said property is liable to be divided between all the legal heirs of the father Koran Vaidyar. 3. The trial court did not agree with this contention after an elaborate and deep study of all facts and circumstances revealed in the case. An appeal was filed by the defendants. The learned single Judge considered the question elaborately and found that all the legal representatives of Koran Vaidyar cannot claim right of partition in regard to item No. 1. 4. Admittedly item No. 1 was obtained while the plaintiff and 1st defendant were minors. They have got full title to this property and the others have no title at all. The very fact that the father acted as guardian would show that the father wanted that the property should enure to the benefit of the minors. It is difficult to sustain a plea by a guardian who held the property for the minors to claim that he is the true owner of the property in derogation of the title of the minors. Now the other legal representatives stand in the place of the guardian and so the legal representatives also cannot make a claim that the true owner of the property is not the title holder, but person who has acted as guardian. Such a contention is obnoxious to the theory of ownership of minors. The learned single Judge has considered the matter elaborately and the finding of the learned single Judge gives no room for any doubt as regards the correctness of the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge. We see no merit in the appeal and the appeal is only to ba dismissed. We do so.