JUDGMENT

Edgley, J. - In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiff Company sued the defendants on a promissory note alleged to have been executed by defendant 1 who alone contested the suit. It was said that defendant 1 had borrowed the sum of Rs. 300 from the plaintiff company and had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per mensem. The total amount claimed was Rs. 624. The execution of the promissory note was admitted, but the main defence was to the effect that, at the time of the execution of this document, defendant 1 was a minor. The suit was decreed by both Courts. The findings of the lower appellate Court are to the effect that the appellant was a minor at the time when he executed the promissory note, that he knew that the period of his minority had been extended, that the plaintiff company did not know that defendant 1 was a minor and that this defendant obtained the loan from the plaintiff company by falsely and fraudulently representing that he was not a minor. Defendant 1 has now appealed to this Court and the main contention urged on his behalf is that he was incompetent under the law to contract at the time when he executed the promissory not