BAJIRAO MAHAR Vs. RAMRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The bond in suit was executed by the second respondent Mt. Bahina in her own name. The recital therein is to the effect that the money was borrowed for the purposes of cultivation. The bond did not in terms purport to be executed by Mt. Bahina on behalf of the minor Bajirao, although it is admitted that it is only his estate which could possibly be referred to in the bond. The learned District Judge on the strength of the decision in Bhawal Sahu v. Baijnath Pertab Narain Singh [1908] 35 Cal. 320 has held that the minor's estate could not be bound except upon a document expressly purporting to bind it. I do not think, however, that in the circumstances of the present case the learned District Judge's view in this connexion is correct. As was laid down in Seth Ghasiram v. Binia [1905] 1 N.L.R. 66 and in Mangallal v. Nanhi A.I.R. 1922 Nag. 104 a minor is bound by the act of his guardian done bona fide for his benefit in the management of the estate, even though his name does not appear in the connected transaction. A similar view was taken in Murari v Tayana [1896] 20 Bom. 286. The question, therefore which the lower appellate Court has, first of all, to determine is whether it was the intention of the mother to deal with the minor's estate and for his benefit when she executed the bond in suit. It is from this point of view that the present case has to be approached. A perusal of the facts of the case in Bhawal Sahu v. Baijnath Partab Narain Singh [1908] 35 Cal. 320 will show that the circumstances of that case were wholly different from those of the present one. Here the money was borrowed expressly for cultivation and apparently it could only have been the fields of the minor ward which were referred to in this connexion. The lower appellate Court must, therefore, consider the question of the liability of the estate of the minor ward from the point of view stated above.

(2.) AS regards the question of legal necessity, that also will have to be re-considered in view of the wrong angle from which the learned District Judge approached the case. This question was only considered after the finding in para. 2 adverse to the case of the plaintiff-appellant was arrived at, and was purely considered from the point of view of whether the money was borrowed to meet the necessities of the minor and the like.