MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM CHETTY Vs. RANGA AYYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, in this second appeal, is defendant 1. The plaintiff, as assignee for collection, sued the appellant and his mother, defendant 2, on a promissory note executed by the latter as his guardian for a sum of Rs. 1,500. The District Munsif found that the note was not genuine. On appeal the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, holding not only that the note was genuine but also that the consideration for it was advanced for purposes binding on defendant 1's estate. His findings, so far as they are findings of fact, we must accept. It is now argued, on the footing of these findings, that defendant 2 had no power to impose a personal liability on her minor son. The question at issue seems to us to be concluded by the opinion of the majority of the Full Bench in Ramajogayya v. Jagannadhan [1919] 42 Mad. 185 which was that a decree could be passed against a minor's estate on a contract entered into by his guardian in a case in which the estate would have been liable for the obligation incurred by the guardian under the personal law to which the minor was subject. They held, as a result, that a decree could be passed against the estate of a Hindu minor for a debt contracted by his guardian for the marriage of his sister. The Chief Justice, following the decision of the Judicial Committee in Waghela Rajsanji V/s. Masludin [1987] 11 Bom. 551 dissented, though he conceded that . that ruling would not affect the liability of the minor's estate Under Section 68, Contract Act, to persons who had supplied him, during minority, with necessaries suited to his condition in life. The effect of the decision of the majority has been succinctly stated by Curgenven, J., in Venkata Jagannatha V/s. Venkatakumara A.I.R. 1931 Mad. 140 in Zamindar of Polavaram V/s. Maharaja of Pittapuram as being that any liability to which the minor would be subject under the Hindu law is not the less a liability because it was incurred by his guardiau on his behalf.

(2.) In Ramakrishna Reddiar V/s. Kasivasi Chidambara Swamigal A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 407. Thiruven-katachariar, J., put the position in this way: The guardian may, without charging the estate, contract loans for necessary purposes which he could not otherwise meet, the term necessary purposes being understood as comprising all that is necessary to meet the wants of the minor and of other members of the family who have claims either against him personally or against his estate. The creditor in such cases cannot enforce the claim against the minor personally, but may enforce it against his properties.

(3.) That was what he understood to be the effect of the decision in Ramajogayya V/s. Jagannadhan [1919] 42 Mad. 185 and we think that he understood it correctly. The position, he thought, was this: If the creditor had sued the guardian alone on the personal covenant and recovered the loan from her, the latter had the right to be reimbursed from the estate and the creditor could therefore stand in her shoes and be allowed to enforce his claim direct against the estate itself.