YADORAO Vs. CHANDUDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned District Judge has held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the sum of Rs. 600 was used in payment for necessaries supplied to the minor for his marriage. That finding is based upon the fact that it is not even asserted in the evidence that more than Rs. 200 or Rs. 250 was so spent. But there has been no examination of the question whether any less amount than Rs. 600 was so spent. The. minor is not liable at all on the contract made by his mother, but he is liable for any sum of money spent on procuring necessaries for him. The liability is based on the authority of Section 68 of the Contract Act, and not, as the learned Judge has said, on the authority of the decisions reported in 2 Nag. L.R. 25 and 13 N L.R. 109.

(2.) NOW a sum which Prayagdas (1 D. W. 9) calls one of

(3.) THE interest which Budhia Bai agreed to pay in the bond was at the rate of 13 1/2 per cent per annum or as it i9 commonly called, ' eighteen annas a month. " But the interest to be awarded is not on the contract, which is void, but as damages at a fair rate. The rate of 13 1/2 per cent is certainly a very reasonable rate, and that is further proved by the fact that it is the rate which Budhia Bai and Purandas were willing to pay and agreed to pay in the bond they executed. The respondent Chandudas is therefore liable to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 250 with compound interest thereon at 13i per cent per annum from the 19th of May 1920 to the 21st of April 1925, that is Rs. 466-6-0.