GOKEDA LATCHARAO Vs. VISWANADHAM BHIMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think this is a case which mm I be heard by a Bench, as there is no authoritative decision covering the question raised in the case. The suit out of which the second appeal arose was instituted on foot of two promissory notes. Exhibit A-1 dated 14th June, 1947, for Rs. 1500 and Exhibit A-2 dated 10th August, 1947, for Rs. 1,000 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. The defence to the suit was that the promissory notes were executed when the defendant was a minor and that the suit notes were not supported by consideration.

(2.) The plaintiff relied on a fraudulent misrepresentation made by the defendant regarding his age and he also raised the contention that the amount was supplied for the necessaries of the defendant and his family. The trial Court found that as admitted by the defendant only Rs. 250 was received under the promissory notes by the defendant and that the balance of the consideration was not paid. It was also found that the defendant as a minor on the date of the execution of the promissory notes and that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the age. On these findings, he dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

(3.) On appeal, the lower appellate Court found that the defendant received full consideration under the promissory notes ; that he was a minor on the date of the execution of the promissory notes and that there was a misrepresentation by the defendant regarding his age on the date of the execution of the notes. It granted a decree against the defendant for the full amount applying section 65 of the Indian Contract Act and held that as the agreement was discovered to be void the defendant should return the advantage received under Exhibits A-1 and A-2.