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