JUDGMENT

Nasim Ali, J. - This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money on a mortgage bond. The substantial defence of the defendant was that he was a minor at the time of the loan and as such plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The Courts below have found that defendant 1 executed the mortgage bond and borrowed the money. It has been further found by the Courts below that defendant 1 was a minor at the time when the bond was executed and the money was advanced. The Courts below have also found that there had been no fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of defendant 1 about his age at the time when he executed the bond. On these findings the Courts below have dismissed the suit. Hence the present appeal by the plaintiff.

2. The first point urged on behalf of the appellant is that the finding of the lower appellate Court, that there had been no fraud by the minor, is wrong, inasmuch as it was the duty of the defendant to disclose to the plaintiff at the time of the transaction that his minority was extended by the appointment of a guardian under the Guardian and Wards Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Surendra Nath Roy v. Krishna Sak