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

Madras High Court
Sobhanadri Appa Rau vs Sriramulu on 26 September, 1893
Equivalent citations: (1894) ILR 17 Mad 221
Author: M Ayyar
Bench: M Ayyar


Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. This was a suit upon a bond executed by the defendant’s mother as his guardian in renewal of an old debt. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that, but for the new bond, the old debt would be barred by limitation at the date of suit, and that a guardian was not competent to make an acknowledgment on behalf of his ward so as to give a fresh start for the period of limitation. The decision of the High Court at Calcutta in Wajibun v. Kadir Buksh I.L.R. 13 Cal. 295 is not consistent with the principle and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Chinnaya v. Gurunatham I.L.R. 5 Mad. 169. According to the last-mentioned decision, the manager of a joint Hindu family, in which there may be minors, has authority to acknowledge a debt, provided that it is not barred at the date of acknowledgment. In my opinion, such an acknowledgment may often be necessary to obtain an extension of time for payment of minor’s debt and thereby prevent imminent pressure on the minor’s property, and I see no reason to think that it is not an act within the general power of a guardian to do what is either necessary in the interest of the minor or what is manifestly for his benefit. Following the principle of the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court, I set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the case for disposal on the merits. Costs incurred hitherto will abide and follow the result and be provided for in his revised judgment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.173 seconds.