Validity of sale by de-facto guardian for discharging debt.

Kania, C. J.-This appeal has to be decided in accordance with the judgments just delivered in Civil Appeal No. XI of 19481, as the points of law involved in both are the same. For the reasons contained in my judgment in that appeal, when applied to the facts here, this appeal must fail and is therefore dismissed with costs.

S. Fazl Ali, J.-I am of the same view as my Lord the Chief Justice.

B.K. Mukherjea, J.-I am of the same view as my Lord the Chief Justice.

Majajan, J.-These appeals from two decisions of the Madras High Court can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment, as they raise the same question of law, namely,

“whether a person who is a de facto manager of the estate of a Hindu minor can in law execute a promissory note in the name of the minor in respect of money borrowed for necessary purposes and thereby bind the minor’s estate”.

A Full Bench of the High Court held that a de facto manager cannot bind a minor’s estate by a promissory note executed by him in the minor’s name. It was observed that it was one thing for a de facto guardian to borrow money for a necessary purpose and quite another thing to sign a nogotiable instrument on the minor’s behalf and that a power to borrow does not in itself imply a power to execute a negotiable instrument in respect of the debt. The question is a very important one of the general interest. There is a considerable body of authority in decided cases which touches it, but it is not concluded by any judgment of the Privy Council or of this Court.

It is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to both the appeals before considering thd question of law raised in them. One Chelamayya Chowdari was the resident of Mynenivaripalem, which is one of the hamlets of Dhulipudi. He was

1. Sriramulu v. Pundarikakshayya, (1949) F.L.J. 288.

the village munsif of the place and is said to be a rich and influential person, leading a life in high style. He was an English educated gentleman and was the adopted son of Basava Chowdari, his paternal uncle. He had two wives, but no children from either of them. On the 20th November, 1924, he executed and registered a will, under which he conferred authority on his second wife, Sri Krishnamma, to adopt a boy to him. Chelamayya Chowdari died on the 9th January, 1925 and was survived by his two widows. In pursuance of the authority conferred upon Sri Krishnamma, she adopted her sister’s son the plaintiff in both the suits out of which these appeals have arisen. She died in November, 1928 and after her death plaintiff’s natural father, China Seshayya, entered upon the management of his estate, and continued managing it till 9th December, 1937 the date on which the plaintiff attained majority. On the 2nd June, 1932 China Seshayya acting as the de facto manager of the minor’s estate executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant, Kondamudi Sriramulu, in respect of the lands mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, about 21 acres in area, for a consideration of Rs. 14,873 comprised as follows:

(a) Rs. 75 paid in cash, representing the cost of stamp and registration charges.

(b) Rs. 10,207-6-6 due on foot of a promissory note dated 22nd June, 1931, executed by China Seshayya, the de facto guardian, for a sum of Rs. 9,251-11-6. This amount was due on an earlier promissory note of 23rd April, 1928, executed by Sri Krishnamma for Rs. 6,802-11-6.This last note was for a consolidated sum due on two promissory notes of 23rd April, 1925, by Sri Krishnamma for Rs. 3,802 and Rs. 1,200 respectively. The amount of Rs. 1,200 had been raised by her after the death of her husband for the necessities of the minor, while the amount of Rs. 3,802 was on account of a loan borrowed by Chelamayya Chowdari himself on 1st February, 1923, from the defendant, his pleader.

(e) Rs. 4,590-9-6 to be paid to one Gutta Punnayya in part discharge of the promissory note which China Seshayya as de facto manager had executed in his favour on nth November 1931,in renewal of an earlier promis