KESHAV MADHAVRAO DESHMUKH Vs. BALAJI VASUDEO ATHAVALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal is whether a minor is liable on a promissory note passed by his guardian with the sanction of the Court. The material facts are that the grandfather of the minor defendant died possessed of considerable property which by his will he settled on trust for the benefit of his grandson. By the will he appointed his daughter Kondubai and the minor's mother as his trustees. Kondubai passed a promissory note on November 22, 1917, in favour of the plaintiff, and in 1920 she passed another note in renewal of the former for Rs.750. In the meanwhile both these ladies realised the estate and it appears came into possession of a considerable amount of money. They invested the money in their hands in constructing several buildings and in running a flour mill. These ventures did not turn out successful, and the evidence shows that the first promissory note of 1917 was passed for the purpose of borrowing moneys in order to complete a building. Thereafter they applied to the District Court for being appointed guardians of the property of the minor, and Kondubai and the Deputy Nazir of the Court were accordingly appointed as such guardians. In 1923 the second promissory note was renewed once again but this time with the sanction of the District Judge. It is on that note that the present suit was brought by the plaintiff. The trial Court found that the moneys were borrowed for the benefit of the defendant but held that the executants, viz., the two guardians had no authority to pass the promissory note which consequently did not bind the minor. The Court, therefore, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed and the appellate Court raised two issues, viz., whether the executants of the promissory note had authority to pass it and whether it bound the estate of the minor. The learned appellate Judge found these issues in the negative and confirmed the decision of the lower Court. Hence this appeal,

(2.) Mr. Desai for the appellant says that as the trial Court found that moneys were borrowed in the first instance by the promissory note of 1917 and utilised them for the benefit of the minor, and the promissory note in suit was executed after obtaining sanction from the District Court, the minor is personally bound to pay the amount thereof to the plaintiff. It may be mentioned that pending the suit the minor attained majority and a consequent amendment in the plaint was made.

(3.) As early as 1887 the question as to the liability of a minor came before their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Waghela Rajsanji V/s. Shekh Masludin, s.c. I.L.R. 11 Bom. 551, 561, and their Lordships observed as follows (p. 96):- Now it was most candidly stated by Mr. Mayne, who argued the case on behalf of the Respondent, that there is not in Indian law any rule which gives a guardian and manager greater power to bind the infant ward by a personal covenant than exists in English law. In point of fact, the matter must be decided by equity and good conscience, generally interpreted to mean the rules of English law if found applicable to Indian society and circumstances. Their Lordships are not aware of any law in which the guardian has such a power, nor do they see why it should be so in India. They concieve that it would be a very improper thing to allow the guardian to make covenants in the name of his ward, so as to impose a personal liability upon the ward,...