Posted On by &filed under Allahabad High Court, High Court.


Allahabad High Court
Bindeshari Bux Singh vs Chandika Prasad And Anr. on 20 October, 1926
Equivalent citations: AIR 1927 All 242
Author: Pullan


JUDGMENT

Pullan, J.

1. The two lower Courts have concurred in finding that the whole amount contained in a mortgage bond, dated the 19th of September 1914, is due to the plaintiff from Bindeshri Bux Singh, who is the appellant before us. We are only concerned with the lower Court’s decision on this point. It a admitted that the consideration for that bond included an item of Rs. 510 due on a bond of the 7th of February 1914, and that on that date the executant Bindeshri Bux Singh was a minor. It is contended that a minor is not competent on attaining majority to execute a fresh bond ratifying as it were a bond executed by him during his minority. The lower Courts held otherwise relying on a ruling of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Mt. Kundan Bibi v. Sree Narayan [1906] 11 C.W.N. 135, but we are asked to consider that ruling is not good law. All transactions entered into by a minor are void. Consequently the bond entered into on the 7th of February 1914 must be held to have been without any consideration and the minor when he attained majority could not take upon himself a liability, which, from the point of view of law never really existed.

2. We have been shown two rulings of the Madras High Court reported in the case of Indran Ramaswami Pandia Thalavar v. Anthappa Chettiar [1906] 16 M.L.J. 422 and the case of Arumugam Chetti v. Duraisinga Tevar [1911] 37 Mad. 38 in which the matter has been discussed at length, and we are of opinion that we should follow the view taken by their Lordships of the Madras High Court and not that of a single Judge of the Calcutta High Court cited above.

3. In reply we have been referred to a ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Gregson v. Rajah Sri Sri Aditya Deb [1890] 17 Cal. 223, but there is an essential difference between the decision of their Lordships and the case before us, for they were considering not the case of a minor whose transactions are void, but the case of a disqualified proprietor whose transactions were voidable.

4. We are of opinion, therefore, that the sum of Rs. 510 must be excluded from the amount due under the bond of the 19th of September 1914, and to this extent we allow this appeal, and order that the decree of the lower Court be modified and that a decree be substituted for the amount due on the bond of the 10th of August 1915, and for the amount of Rs. 290 due on the bond of the 19th of September 1914 together with interest as already allowed and proportionate costs, and in this Court we allow proportionate costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

106 queries in 0.175 seconds.