BALANGOWDA BHIMANGOWDA Vs. GADIGEPPA BHIMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs-respondents can set up estoppel against the minor Bhimappa on the ground that he bad represented himself to them as a major when he with the widow Adiveva passed the sale-deed in their favour. The plaintiff respondent claimed on the strength of this sale-deed and the defendants-appellants on the strength of an award filed as a decree passed subsequently, when Bhimappa was admittedly a major. Both the lower Courts found that on the date of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff- respondent Bhimappa was a minor, but agreed that he was estopped from questioning the sale, and, therefore, decreed the claim. Defendant No. 1 appeals.

(2.) It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the view of this Court, differing from the other High Courts, that an estoppel can be pleaded by a minor must now be held to be overruled on the strength of the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the very recent case of Sadiq Ali V/s. Jai Kishori . For the plaintiffs-respondents it is argued that the question was expressly reserved by their Lordships of the Privy Council as early as Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) I.L.R. 30 Cal. 539, 545 s. c. 5 Bom. L.R. 421. p.c. and the consistent decisions of this Court from Ganesh Lala V/s. Bapu (1895) I.L.R. 21 Bom. 198; Dadasaheb Dasrathrao V/s. Bai Nahani (1917) I.L.R. 41 Bom. 480, s. c. 19 Bom. L.R. 561; Jasraj Bastimal V/s. Sadashiv Mahadev (1921) I.L.R. 46 Bom. 137, s. c. 23 Bom. L.R. 975 cannot be held to be overruled by the observations in the recent Privy Council case, Sadiq Ali Khan V/s. Jai Kishori, particularly as similar observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council are to be found in Mahomed Syedol V/s. Yeoh Ooi (1916) 19 Bom. L.R. 157, p. c.

(3.) This last, however, was a case from the Straits Settlement and their Lordships observed (p. 163): A case of fraud by the appellant on the subject of his age was set up, but it cannot be doubted that the principle recently given effect to in the case of R. Leslie Limited V/s. Sheill would apply, and such a case would fail.