RAI SHYAM BAHADUR Vs. RAMESHWAR PRASAD ROHATGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R. 280 of 1941. On 2 May, 1939 defendant 2 as the legally appointed guardian of defendant 1 who was then a minor, borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 350. This loan was contracted with the sanction of the District Judge and a handnote in evidence of it was executed in which defendant 2 described himself as the guardian of defendant 1 and signed the handnote in that capacity. Sometime later in the year (the month appears to be November) steps were taken to remove defendant 2 from the guardianship of the minor and for a fresh guardian to be appointed. A fresh guardian was appointed sometime during the end of the year 1939. The minor attained his majority during the pendency of the present suit, which was instituted in the Court of Small Causes. The defence to the suit was that the money had not been borrowed at all or that if it was borrowed, it was not borrowed on behalf of the minor. The Court below, in view of the fact that the District Judge had sanctioned the loan, found no difficulty in holding that the loan had been contracted on behalf of the minor.

(2.) It has, however, been strenuously contended on behalf of defendant 1 in this Court that no loan was in fact taken at all. Reference has been made to the fact that the plaintiff is a nephew of the defendant who was the guardian of the minor at the time of the loan, and largely from this circumstance, it has been argued that no money was advanced at all. The books of the parties were produced at the trial and in the defendants book there is an entry showing that Rs. 350 was received as a loan on 2 May, 1939 and on the other side are entries showing that the greater part of this money was expended in discharge of obligations of the minor's estate on the very same date. It has been argued that there was no necessity for this loan because it has been admitted that there were (various sums of money in the hands of the estate on 2nd May. It may be assumed that at the various t places where portions of the estate are situated there was money which the servants of the estate received from the tenants; but at the head-quarters of the estate the books show that the amount in hand at head-quarters was very considerably less than the amount which was spent there on 2 May, and this amount could not have been spent in discharge of the estate's obligations but for the receipt of Rs. 350 from the plaintiff. There is nothing in the evidence in this case to suggest that the entries in the defendants books relating to the sums spent on behalf of the estate on 2 May, 1939 are not genuine. The only criticism that can be levelled against these entries is that the entries were made at the time that defendant 2 was the guardian of the minor's estate. The entries, however, as I have stated, have not been shown to represent fictitious payments and from the books, in my opinion, it is quite clear that the estate received Rs. 350 on 2 May, and that most of it was spent on behalf of the estate on that date.

(3.) It has been argued that the guardian had no right to bind the minor or his estate by a contract; but the Court below has quite rightly relied on the decision in Benares Bank Ltd. V/s. Dip Chand A.I.R. 1936 All. 172 which was a case of a handnote executed by the guardian of a minor as evidence of a loan contracted by the guardian on behalf of the minor with the sanction of the District Judge. The facts of that case are on all fours with the present case so far as this point is concerned and in my view the decision of the Court below should be upheld.