Introduction The purpose of establishing supportive interdict regulations is to protect the victims and physically and mentally handicapped presons in the concluded contracts. Minors are among those people, called interdict in law language; a legislator must protect minors against all individuals, though, forced guardian or trustee. Because of having legal capacity enjoyment, the wards would possess his/her own properties or legal rights, but, deu to lack of demanding the fulfillment of right, s/he has not the capability of its execution and the forced guardian, unnecessarily, has an option for decision making on behalf of the ward with regard to his/her financial and non-financial rights. But, this authority is not absolute and his guardianship has specific limitations. Observing begrudge and goodness on one hand and not existing corruption on the other hand would determine the DOMAIN authorities of the forced guardians. On of the most important assets of minors are their limbs. Human limbs are considered his/her assets under his/her ownership, a property that is of high importance due to saving human soul. Among various limbs owners, because of different reasons such as economic reason, organ health, lack of mental and physical power, and irresistibility, the wards have always been subject of greed for limb removal and transplanting. Conclusion The removing and transplanting wards’ limbs is not only contrary to human dignity and principle of supporting the disabled persons, but also includes no begrudge and goodness in the removal of their organs. In contrary, it causes hardship and destitution in minors’ future life and causing their physical and mental damage or loss is certain and obvious. It is necessary to observe the jurisdictional rule, “ No loss” . In addition, the legal principle of forced guardian, non-authority in minor’ s non-financial affairs, is generalizable to this condition. Sometimes, by establishing ethical restrictions, legislator has accepted such conditions and restricted the forced guardian’ s expansive authority’ s principles in some cases. Consequently, forced guardian does not have the authority to accept or confirm the action of ward’ s limb removal and transplanting, and in the case of agreement, it is considered a reason to depose forced guardianship, and also the limb removal contract is considered invalid.