Mata Din vs Sheikh Ahmad Ali on 16 January, 1912
4. These, however, are subordinate pleas. The appellant's main plea is one which goes to the root of the case. His case is that in whatever capacity Musammat Sumitra came into possession of the property and whatever the nature of the debts incurred by her, Nathi was on her death admittedly only entitled to a half share in it. He was entitled to encumber that half share or deal with it in anyway he liked, but he had no legal right to execute mortgages on property which was not his own and these mortgages cannot in any event be binding on the plaintiff. It seems superfluous to quote authority for the proposition that a man has no right to deal with property which is not his own and that unless he can show some fight to deal with it, either as agent or guardian of the owner or trustee or the like, any transfer which he purports to make cannot bind the lawful owner. Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act has been referred to as embodying this principle. Mata Din v. Ahmad Ali 13 Ind. Cas. 976 : 34 A. 213 : 16 C.W.N. 338 : 11 M.L.T. 145 : (1912) M.W.N. 183 : 9 A.L.J. 215 : 15 C.L.J. 270 : 14 Bom. L.R. 192 : 15 O.C. 49 : 33 M.L.J. 6 : 39 I.A. 49 (P.C.) was a case in which it was sought to validate a sale of property by persons who were not the owners of it by describing them as de facto guardians. Their Lordships of the Privy Council said that though the so called dc facto guardian might assume important responsibilities in relation to the minor's property he could not by his de facto guardianship clothe himself with legal power to sell it. In one passage in his judgment the learned District Judge speaks of Nathi as the de facto administrator of the property but this expression is not based on anything in the evidence and merely means that Nathi was in actual possession.