NAROTTAMDAS BHAGWANDAS Vs. CHITTA BHAGWANSANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGWANSANG Himatsang, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, was indebted to the plaintiff, and after his death, when his sons were still minors, one Somabhai, as their de facto guardian, settled the dues and passed a bond in favour of the plaintiff on June 11, 1929. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover Rs. 717-5-9 due under that bond. He alleged that defendant No.3 had signed the bond as a surety, and was also liable for the debt. By that time defendant No.1 had attained majority, and he admitted the plaintiff's claim. But the Nazir, who was appointed the guardian ad litem of defendant No.2, stated that he had no instructions. Defendant No.3, who was the real contesting party, contended that the debt for which he had passed the bond in suit was time-barred, and, therefore, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were not bound to satisfy the band, that he himself was not a surety and that, assuming that he was a surety, he was not liable since the bond itself was not binding on defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who were the principal debtors. Both the lower Courts upheld this contention and dismissed the suit.

(2.) THREE points are raised in this appeal, namely, (i) whether Somabhai as the de facto guardian of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 could pass a bond in renewal of a time-barred debt; (ii) whether the debt was time-barred; and (iii) whether defendant No.3 was liable as a surety.