JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claims to be put into proprietary possession of one-third of certain property together with an account of what was due to her whilst she was wrongfully kept out of possession, and to he awarded the amount so found due. The main facts relevant to the present appeal are admitted. A decree was made on the 29th of February 1892 in favour of one Adit Ram, son of Fateh Ram, Mangal Ram and Madho Ram, sons of Gulub Ram, and Musammat Munna Kunwar (daughter of Daya Ram) under the guardianship of the aforesaid Mangal Ram. In part discharge of this decree certain properties were purchased but in the names only of Mangal Ram, Adit Ram and Madho Ram. The plaintiff says that she was entitled to one-third of the decree and that therefore the decree having been discharged in part by the transfer of the property, she is entitled to the property to the extent of her interest in the decree and that Mangal Ram, who was her guardian, must be deemed to have held the property to the extent of one third as trustee for her Numerous defences were pleaded, including a plea that the claim of Musammat Manna Kunwar under the decree had been discharged and that she had been paid off, and a further plea of limitation. The Court below without deciding any of the other issues has dismissed the suit as being barred by-time.
2. We are clearly of opinion that if Mangal Ram, who was the guardian of Munna Kunwar in this very decree, gave a discharge for the decree in whole or in part in consideration of the transfer to him of certain property, he would hold that property as the trustee for Munna Kunwar to the extent of her interest. It is doubtful whether time would run at all in favour of Mangal Ham, or his representatives, but certainly time would not commence to run until after Musammat Munna Kunwar attained majority. Mangal Ram undoubtedly was in a fiduciary rapacity towards Munna Kunwar. We, therefore, think that the Court below was wrong in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. Munna Kunwar did not attain her majority until the 27th of September 1901 and the suit was instituted on the 23rd of September 1911. We wish it to be understood that we are not expressing any opinion on the other issues.
3. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below and remand the case to that Court with directions to re-admit the case under its original number in the file and to proceed to hoar and determine the same according to law. The appellant must have the costs of this appeal, which will include in this Court-fees on the higher scale. Other costs will be costs in the cause.