PANDURANG VITHOBA DAHAKE Vs. PANDURANG RAMCHANDRA GORLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff applicant sued the defendants for recovery of his debt advanced on pro-notes executed by their mother, who was their guardian, as well as the manager of the joint Hindu family consisting of herself and her minor sons. The defendants denied the execution of the pro-notes and legal necessity for the same and stated that the suit could not be decreed against them. The Court held that the pro-notes were executed by the mother of the minors, who was their guardian, and that the loan was for legal necessity, but dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree against the minor defendants on the basis of the pro-notes executed by their guardian. The plaintiff comes up in revision against this decision.

(2.) THE Court below having found that the pro-notes were executed by the defendants' mother for consideration, which was justified by legal necessity, fell into an error in making a distinction between a guardian and a manager of the family. The Court held in para. 5 of its judgment that under Hindu law the mother is not a guardian of the joint family property of her minor sons, though she would be so of their separate property. The Court further found that the mother was the manager de facto of the joint family property, but stated that the mother though manager de facto of the joint family property could not be regarded as the manager of the joint family property under law as she was not a male coparcener of the family. Having thus ruled out the managership of the mother with respect to joint family property the Court came to the conclusion that the pro-notes executed by her were not binding on the minor sons and no decree could be obtained. The Court further went on drawing a nice distinction between a suit based on a pro-note and a suit based on a loan and stated in its judgment that the present suit was not a suit for recovery of a loan but based on pro-notes and therefore no decree could be passed against the minors or their property. The entire decision of the Court below is based on a misconception of the law governing such transactions and the right of the manager of a joint Hindu family to bind the estate of a minor by incurring loans for legal necessity.

(3.) IT is not correct to say that the mother could not be the manager of a joint Hindu family. In Kesheo Bharati v. Jagannath A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 81 and Hanooman Pershad v. Mt. Babooee Munraj Koonweree (57) 6 M.I.A. 393 the mother was held to be the manager de facto and she could incur debts which were for necessity, and they were held binding on the minors. Even the alienations made by such mothers were held to be binding if legal necessity was established. At p. 10 of Kesheo Bharati v. Jagannath A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 81 Hallifax A.J.C. observed that any adult member of the family, male or female, is entitled to be the manager of the family.