JUDGMENT
1. The second defendant is no doubt described in the body of the suit note as the guardian of the 1st defendant, who was at its date a minor; and the necessity for borrowing is stated in it as arising from the 1st defendant’s father’s debt. We are not, however, prepared to treat these facts alone as sufficient to indicate that 2nd defendant signed as 1st defendant’s guardian or did not intend to incur personal liability. We must, therefore, hold that 1st defendant is not liable on the note.
2. It is urged in the alternative that he is liable on the original debt, for which the note was substituted. But that was not the case relied on in the plaint, nor has it been shown how plaintiff, an assignee of the pro-note alone, could rely on it, or how a suit on the debt could be in time.
3. In these circumstances, the appeal against order must be allowed, the lower Appellate Court’s order being set aside and the District Munsif’s decree restored. Plaintiff will pay 1st defendant’s costs throughout.
