JUDGMENT
Ratnam, J.
1. The only contention urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is support of this second appeal at the instance of the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 53 of 1975, District Munisif’s Court, Chidambaram, is that the father of the 1st plaintiff had attested the deed of exchange and therefore, the 1st plaintiff would be precluded from questioning the exchange deed and likewise, the 2nd plaintiff would not secure any title to the suit property by reason of the sale by the 1st plaintiff is favour of the 2nd plaintiff in the suit. It is common ground that the suit property belonged to one Gulam Hussain Sahib, father of the 1st plaintiff and his title to the suit property was declared in O.S. No. 65 of 1932, Sub-Court, Cuddalore, and he had executed that decree and had taken possession through court and was also in possession. Subsequently, under the original of Exs.A.1, he executed a registered gift deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff appointing the mother of the 1st plaintiff as her guardian and directing her to be in possession of the property on behalf of the minor till she attains majority and to deliver possession after the 1st plaintiff had been specifically prohibited from alienating the property and all that she had been permitted to do is to remain in possession of the property as guardian. Under (he personal law of the parties, the mother of the 1st plaintiff though appointed as guardian in respect of the property settled on the 1st plaintiff under Ex.A.1, would only be in the nature of a de facto guardian in the presence of the father of the 1st plaintiff, who would be the de jure guardian. There is no dispute that the exchange deed under Ex.A.9 had been entered into on behalf of the 1st plaintiff through her mother and her father had not participated in the transaction at all. In other words, the deed of exchange would be a transaction entered into on behalf of the 1st plaintiff through her defacto guardian and such a transaction by the father of the 1st plaintiff would not confer any sanctity or legality on that transaction. Thus, from the mere attestation of the exchange deed by the father of the 1st plaintiff, the validity of that transaction cannot be upheld. It is further seen from the documentary evidence, particularly Ex.A.5 that the 1st defendant who is stated to have parted with 33 cents of land in Mela Moongiladi Village in exchange, had sold that property to Srinivasa Padayachi and it is therefore, obvious that the 1st plaintiff could not have had the benefit of the exchange at all, as she had not obtained or secured any property of the 1st defendant agreed by him to be given in exchange under Ex.A.9. Likewise, the proceedings in O.S. No. 222 of 1958 would also be not binding upon the 1st plaintiff for the reason that the entire suit proceeded on the footing of the legality and validity of the transaction of exchange, which, as pointed out earlier, would not be binding upon the 1st plaintiff, as she was not represented in the transaction by a lawful guardian, according to the persona law, by her mother, a de facto guardian. Under those circumstances, the courts below were quite right in decreeing the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs. No case is made out to interfere with the judgments and decree of the courts below. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with the costs of respondents.