JAMBAGATHACHI; VANJI IYER DEADAND RAMIER Vs. A MALE CHILD NOT NAMED MINOR BY GUARDIAN RAJAMANNASWAMI NADALWAR; KANNUSAWMI REGUNADA RAJALIAR MINOR BY GUARDIAN RAJAMANNARSAWMI NADALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these suits an attempt was made to make the minor defendant responsible upon promissory notes executed by his father during the father s minority. It is found that, at the date of execution, the father was between 18 and 21 years of age but his minority was extended by the appointment of a guardian of his persons under the Guardians and Wards .Act. Prima facie as a minor is incompetent to contract, the promissory notes represented void contracts. See Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose 30 C. 539 (P.C.) : 30 I.A. 114 : 7 C.W.N. 441 : 5 Bom. L.R. 421 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 374.

(2.) But it is argued (1) that the defendant is estopped from raising the defence of minority as his father being at the time of execution between 18 and 21 and having shown to the payee, plaintiff, a partition deed to which he was a party and having been dealing with his property as if he was a major, induced the plaintiff to believe that he had attained majority, (2) that the order appointing a guardian of a junior member of a Hindu joint family was ultra vires and a nullity so far as strangers are concerned, (3) that as soon as the elder brother attained majority the guardianship of the junior member ipso facto ceased.

(3.) These objections may be briefly answered.