JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiffs and the defendant are brothers. When they and their brother Goti Prokash Nandy, who is not a party to this suit, were all minors, Karuna Nidhan Mukherjee was appointed their guardian by the District Judge of Burdwan. Certain Government securities endorsed in the names of the five brothers came into the hands of Karuna Nidhan as such guardian. The defendant Jyoti Prokash attained his majority about 1901. Their estate, however, remained under the management of Karuna Nidhan who acted as the manager of the defendant and as guardian for his infant brothers. In or about 1909 the defendant wanted money for purchasing a house in Calcutta, but there was not sufficient money in the hands of his manager, in his share of the income, from which the amount could at that time be paid. Karuna thereupon suggested that he could advance Rs. 50,000 from certain Government securities in his hands belonging to the shares of his infant brothers, who are the plaintiffs in this suit, two of whom have since attained majority and the third, still an infant, being represented by Karuna in this suit, It appears that an application was thereupon made by the defendant to the District Judge praying that Karuna Nidhan Mukherjee as such guardian might have permission to grant the defendant a loan of Rs. 50,000 out of the Government papers belonging to his minor brothers. He offered to pay interest at 5 per cent, and stated that he was ready to pledge his share in the ejmali Government securities, meaning the Government papers which stood in the joint names of himself and his brothers, and also his share in the ejmali ornaments as security for the said advance. The ornaments were at that time in a room to which locks had been separately put by Karuna and himself, Karuna also represented to the Judge that the defendant had proposed to pledge as security for the said debt his share in the Government securities left by his father. He stated that he had originally in his hands, Rs. 8,20,000 in Government securities which stood in the joint names of the defendant and his brothers and that the defendant's share in the said Government securities was Rs. 64,000, but as the defendant had drawn out Rs. 13,000 which had been previously separated from the ejmali account and transferred to his separate, share, the defendant had at that time a right to receive Government securities of the value of Rs. 51,000 only on account of his share. The Judge thereupon made an order to this effect: "The guardian personally applied to me for permission to lend Rs. 50,000 to the elder brother of the minors Lala Jyoti Prokash Nandy. The conditions of the loan to be as follows: Lala Jyoti Prokash Nandy will take Government pro - notes to the face value of Rs. 50,000 bearing interest at 3 1/2 per cent. He will pay interest at 5 per cent on Rs. 50,000 and will execute a hand-note for that amount. He will also pledge his share in the Government pro-notes belonging to his estate which amounts to Rs. 51,000 and his l/5th share in the ornaments left by his father. The notes and ornaments pledged will remain with his guardian. The loan is to be re-paid by transfer of Government pro-notes to the face value of Rs. 50,000 bearing interest at 3 1/2 per cent. A time for re-payment should, in my opinion, be fixed on the above conditions. The loan proposed is sanctioned." The date of re - payment of the loan was subsequently fixed for three years. In accordance with this order Karuna Nidhan Mukerjee as guardian of his infant brothers handed over to the defendant Government securities for Rs. 50,000 belonging to the infants. The defendant's case as regards the arrangement about re-payment is set out in paragraph 5 of the written statement Clause (f) (I to IV). It is admitted that the jewellery which was to have been pledged remained under their joint lock and key and was never delivered to Karuna. It has also been shown that a portion of the ejmali Government securities was subs