GADIGEPPA BHIMAPPA METI Vs. BALANGOWDA BHIMANGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference to a full bench in which the questions raised are whether the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Ganesh Lala V/s. Bapu (1895) I.L.R. 21 Bom. 198, Dadasaheb Dasrathrao V/s. Bai Nahani (1917) I.L.R. 41 Bom. 480, s.c. 19 Bom. L.R. 561, and Jasraj Bastimal V/s. Sadashiv Mahadev (1921) I.L.R. 46 Bom. 137, s.c. 23 Bom. L.R. 975 are impliedly overruled by the Privy Council in Sadiq Ali Khan V/s. Jai Kishori and if not whether the Bombay decisions ought to be overruled having regard to the consensus of opinion of the other High Courts in the cases referred to in the question.

(2.) I propose to deal with those two questions as one, because if I entertained a strong opinion that the decisions of the Bombay High Court were right in principle, I should be reluctant to hold that they were impliedly overruled by the Privy Council in a case in which those authorities were not referred to.

(3.) The Bombay cases in question have decided that where an infant represents that he is of full age and thereby induces some one believing the statement to enter into a contract with him, the infant is estopped in an action against him founded upon the contract from proving that in fact he was not of full age at the date of the contract. All the other High Courts in British India have come to a different conclusion, though they are by no means unanimous as to their reasons.