MYNENI PUNDARIKAKSHAYYA Vs. KONDAMUDI SREERAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question in this appeal is whether a person, who without lawful authority takes upon himself the management of the estate of a Hindu minor, can in law execute a promissory note in the name of the minor in respect of money borrowed for a necessary purpose and thereby bind the minor's estate. The person who without lawful authority takes charge of a minor's estate is commonly referred to as the de facto guardian and it will be convenient to use the expression in this judgment.

(2.) The appellant is the adopted son of one Chelamaiya Chowdri, who died on the 9th January, 1925. Chelamaiya Chowdri was survived by two widows and by his will dated the 20 November, 1924, he gave the junior widow, Sri Krishnamma, power to adopt a son to him. She exercised the power in favour of the plaintiff soon after the testator's death. The validity of the adoption is not in question. Sri Krishnamma died in the month of November 1928 and after her death the plaintiff's natural father, China Seshayya, entered upon the management of his estate. In Chennappa V/s. Onkarappa , a Full Bench of this Court held that the Hindu law only recognises the father or the mother of a minor as his lawful guardian and that when both of them are dead there can be no dejure guardian without an order of the Court. China Seshayya had not been appointed the plaintiff's guardian by an order of Court and therefore he had no authority to manage the minor's estate.

(3.) On the 1 February, 1923, Chelamaiya Chowdri borrowed Rs. 3,000 from the defendant, who was his pleader. On the 23 April, 1925, Sri Krishnamma, then the dejure guardian of the minor, renewed this promissory note. With interest the debt had by that time amounted to Rs. 3,802. On the same date she executed another promissory note in the name of the minor in respect of a further loan of Rs. 1,200. On the 23 April, 1928, Sri Krishnamma executed a promissory note for Rs. 6,802-11-6 in renewal of the two promissory notes of the 23 April, 1925. On the 22nd June, 1931, China Seshayya, the de facto guardian, purported to renew that promissory note. The debt then amounted to Rs. 9,251-11-6. It will be observed that this promissory note was executed more than three years after the date on which the de jure guardian had signed the last promissory note. The explanation of this is that the period of limitation expired during the Court vacation and the payee had the right of instituting a suit on the re-opening of the Court. The new promissory note was executed on that day in order to avoid a suit being filed.