Mahajan, J., observes in Sriramulu v. Pundarikakshyya, 1949 FC 219 that: “Under the Hindu system even person having no lawful authority can effect sales and mortgages and gifts of property belonging to others in certain emergent situations. The kind of power wholly unknown in other systems of Jurisprudence”.
The so-called de facto guardian had thus certain powers of alienation over the minor’s property under the Hindu Law though he was not the legal guardian. To be regarded as a de facto guardian he has to be in management of the property and there should be a course of conduct in regard to that property. A mere intermeddler is not a de facto guardian.
Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, has now abolished the concept of a de facto guardian of a Hindu minor’s property.