Promissory note to operate as an acknowledgement of liability.

The Chief Justice-This is an appeal from a judgment of a Full Bench of the Madras High Court1. The direct question raised for decision is about the power of a de facto guardian to alienate the property of a minor in consideration of a promissory note executed by such guardian in the name of the minor, under Hindu Law.

The material facts are these. The respondent (plaintiff) is the adopted son of Chelamayya Chowdari who died on the 9th January, 1925, leaving him surviving two widows. The junior widow, Krishnamma, was empowered by the deceased to adopt a son to him and accordingly she adopted the respondent who was then about six years old. Krishnamma managed the estate of the minor after such adoption. On the 1st February, 1923, Chelamayya Chowdari had borrowed Rs. 3,000 from the appellant (defendant) who was his pleader. On the 23rd April, 1925, Krishnamma, then the de jure guardian of the minor, renewed this promissory note. By that time the debt with interest had amounted to Rs. 3,802. Othe same date she executed another promissory note in respect of a further sum of Rs.1,200 alleged to be due to the appellant for professional work done by him during the lifetime of Chelamayya. On the 23rd April, 1928, Krishnammi executed a consolidatory promissory note for Rs. 6,802-11-6 in renewal of the two previous notes. She died in November, 1928. Thereafter the respondent’s natural father China Seshayya entered upon the management of his estate. He was not appointed a guardian by any order of the Court and therefore had no legal title to manage thminor’s estate. On the 22nd June, 1931, China Seshayya professing to act as the guardian of the respondent purported to renew the promissory note in the name of the minor. The debt then amounted to Rs. 9,251-11-6. The promissory note was in these terms:

“Promissory note, dated 22nd June, 1931, executed in favour of Kondamudi Gopala Rao’s son Sreeramulu, residing at Tenali by Myneni Chelamayya Chowdari’s adopted son Pundarikak-shayya, residing at Mynenivaripalem, hamlet of Dulipudi in Repalle taluk, being minor by natural father and guardian Mandava Ramaswami’s son China Seshayya, inhabitant of Sajjavaripalem now at Tenali.

The amount of principal and interest due up to 23rd April, 1931, under the promissory note executed on 23rd April, 1928, by Sri Krishnamma the minor’s adoptive mother, for herself and as guardian of the minor being Rs. 9,251-11-6 the interest that had accrued due on that sum from 23rd April, 1931, up to this day being Rs. 181-15-0 and the value of the stamps being As. 4 a total sum of Rs. 9,433-14-6 is due. On demand I shall pay you or your order this sum of nine thousand four hundred and thirty-three rupees, fourteen annas and six pies, with interest at Re. 1 per cent, per mensem. To this effect is the promissory note executed as of consent.

(on four one-anna stamps).

Myneni Pundarikakshayya, being minor-

(Mark and left thumb impression of) Mandava China Seshayya, the natural father and guardian.”

It was alleged that the note was renewed in June, 1931, as the period of limitation expired during the Court vacation when the payee had the right of instituting a suit on the re-opening of the Court and that the new promissory note was executed to avoid a suit being filed. On the 2nd June, 1932, China Seshayya conveyed the immoveable properties mentioned in the plaint to the defendant for Rs. 14,873. Only Rs. 75 were paid in cash and this represented the cost of the stamp on the conveyance and the registration charges. The rest of the consideration was supposed to be satisfied by the discharge of the promissory note of 22nd June, 1931, and by payment of Rs. 4,590-9-6 to another creditor.

On the 9th December, 1937, the respondent attained majority and he instituted the suit on the 9th December, 1940. In order to enable the High Court to determine the points of law, it was accepted on behalf of the respondent that the promissory notes executed by the minor’s adoptive father were