Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.

1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Venkataramana Rao, J., in S.A. No. 492 of 1934. By that judgment he has reversed the decree of both the lower Courts and dismissed the suit with costs throughout.

2. The appeal raises a question of importance involving a decision as to the limits within which a natural guardian under Hindu law can incur a simple contract debt so as to bind the minors estate. That such a guardian has the power to borrow by charging, mortgaging or even by selling the estate or a sufficient portion of it, for purposes termed necessary or beneficial according to that law, cannot at this time of the day be questioned. It is also settled that even in the absence of a proved necessity or benefit, an honest creditor can still recover the debt from the estate if he can show that in advancing the money he acted in the bona fide belief after due enquiry, that the guardian was acting for such a purpose in incurring the debt. These principles which are based as much on Hindu law as on general considerations of equity, have been held to afford a test of the validity of similar transactions by other persons also