NARAIN SINGH Vs. CHIRANJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant against a decree for the amount of a bond executed by him in favour of the plaintiff on 22 November, 1919. The bond was executed in lieu of a pro-note previously executed by him on 14 December 1916. One of the defences to the suit was that the defendant was a minor on the date of the execution of the pro-note. The Court below has held that this defence fails as the defendant has not established the fact of his being a minor on that date.

(2.) The appellant contends that the burden of proving that the defendant was not a minor lay on the plaintiff and has cited two oases of this Court of the years 1909 and 1912 respectively in which that view was taken vide Gaya Din V/s. Musammat Dubari 2 Ind. Cas. 839 : 6 A.L.J. 693, and Kanhaya Lal V/s. Girdhari Lal 13 Ind. Cas. 956 : 9 A.L.J. 103 The matter appears to us to be concluded against the appellant by the judgment of the Privy Council in Jaganath Preshad, (Raja of Deo) v. Abdullah 45 Ind. Cas. 7700 : 45 C. 909 : 16 A.L.J. 576 : 5 P.L.W. 83 : (1918) M.W.N. 406 : 22 C.W.N. 891 : 8 L.W. 163 : 24 M.L.J. 62 : 28 C.L.J. 192 : 20 Bom. L.R. 851 : M.L.T. 46 : 45 I.A. 97 (P.C.). In that case the plaintiff sued on a conveyance executed by Musammat Rajeshwari Kuar. One of the main defences to the suit was that Musammat Rajeshwari Kuar was a minor on the date of execution. The High Court at Calcutta laid the burden of proving this on her and holding that she had failed to establish it decreed the suit. With reference to this their Lordships say: Their Lordships agree with the High Court. The onus to prove minority is on the defendant who asserts it.

(3.) They remark in passing that the evidence tendered by the plaintiff is not open to any obvious objection but they do not decide the case on the plaintiff's evidence. They conclude by saying: It is enough to say that the matter being left in doubt the defendant fails to prove his assertion.