PANDHARINATH MANIKSHET Vs. AJAMKHA SARDARKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference-under Order 46, Rule 1 of the Civil P.C. by the learned District Judge of East K handesh. The point in question is, whether, under the document Exhibit 3 in the case, the minors, who are there mentioned, are excluded by limitation from bringing a suit on the document, or whether they had three years from attaining their majority in which to bring a suit. The learned Judge has felt a difficulty in consequence of a decision of this High Court by Sir Norman Macleod and Mr. Justice Shah in Vishnu V/s. Keshan A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 468 and has consequently referred this point to us, more especially as he states that other cases in the district are pending on the right decision of this particular point.. Vishnu V/s. Keshav A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 468 purported to follow the case of Ramanuja Ayyangar V/s. Sadagopa Ayyangar [1904] 28 Mad. 205. The latter was a case where a promissory note had been taken by the mother and guardian of an infant in her own name. As I read the report it does not even appear that the minor's name was mentioned at all. Accordingly, the Court there held that the holder of the promissory note was the mother, that she was the proper person to sue on the note and not the minor, and that accordingly, the ordinary period of limitation applied, and the minor did not get an extended three years after the period of limitation has expired.

(2.) Again, as I read the decision in Vishnu V/s. Keshav A.I.R. 1924 Bom. 468 the Court there considered that the note was given to and taken by the guardian alone. Sir Norman Macleod in various parts of his judgment says: The promissory note was taken by his guardian when he was a minor...The note was given to his guardian and his guardian could have sued on it.. The guardian, having taken the note he is the person entitled to sue on it.

(3.) We have seen the record in that case and it may well be that the Court acted on the statement of facts in para. 1 of the petition for revision in which it was said that the pro-note was passed in favour of the guardian of the minor.