The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the lender to deal with the guardian on behalf of the estate and not personally, and the availability of the indirect remedy of subrogation to the creditor.

Krishnaswami Aiyangar, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris dismissing her suit, O.S. No. 74 of 1933. That suit was filed by her in her capacity as executrix to the will of her late husband, J. Lornie who had died on 19th May, 1933. Mr. Lornie appears to have been doing while alive, a business in tea and coffee. He had a tea factory of his own, and was also advancing monies to owners of tea and coffee estates, in order to obtain for the purposes of his business the produce of those estates. It is alleged in the plaint that he advanced in the first instance a sum of Rs. 15,000 to the defendant, a minor, on a promissory note executed on 17th November, 1924, by his mother, Kathijabai. Whether at the time she had been appointed guardian of the son is not known, though it is known she was in fact appointed the guardian of his person as well as his property some time in 1925. The money was advanced in order to enable her to discharge a debt of his father and also to run, improve and develop his Upper Yerragadu and Bygalony estates efficiently and so as to obtain a better return from them. A further sum of Rs. 200 was, it is alleged, advanced on 13th April, 1925, for the same purpose. At the end of June, 1925, the amount remaining due to the plaintiffs husband after giving credit for monies and goods received from the guardian was Rs. 10,953-5-0.

2. From the 4th July, 1925, onwards, he began, it is alleged, to make weekly advances for working, improving and developing the estates. These advances were mostly in sums of Rs. 200 or 250 and were made to the Manager of the estate one Yusuf Sait, a near relation of the minor appointed by and acting presumably under the instructions of the guardian. Kathijabai died on 5th August, 1925, and by order of the District Court, Coimbatore, dated 10th December, 1925, Hanifa Bee the sister of the minor was substituted in her place. This however made no difference in the dealings between Lornie and the minors estate which continued on the old basis. Further advances were made and by 31st August, 1926, it was found that a sum of Rs. 24,912-13-0 was due by the defendant but this sum, it is pleaded in the plaint, was repaid by the subsequent payments and deliveries of produce. The account of the dealings which continued after that date resulted on a liability of Rs. 36,244-4-11, as up to 31st March, 1931. With subsequent interest it swelled to Rs. 46,895-7-6 by the date of the plaint and this was the amount claimed as due from the defendant together with further interest.

3. It is noteworthy that the promissory note referred to above which seems undoubtedly a good debt binding upon the minor is hot founded upon in the plaint. The reason must be either the knowledge that a claim on the promissory note as such was barred by limitation or more probably the fear that it evidenced a personal obligation of the guardian not capable of being enforced against the minor or his estate. On its face it does not purport to have been made on behalf of the minor. Neither has any claim been made on the footing of necessaries supplied for the maintenance of the minor. The plaint proceeds entirely on the footing that the advances were made for the requirements of the estate and not for those of the minor.

3. On behalf of the minor defendant, the defence was entered by a third guardian, A. Rahim Sait appointed in place of Hanifa Bee after her removal from the office. In the written statement the defendant questions the right of Kathijabai to borrow on behalf of the minor either as his natural, de facto or de jure guardian. It was pleaded that the advances to her as well as to Hanifa Bee were the result of an unauthorised arrangement between Lornie and Yusuf Sait for the benefit of the former and in order to secure for him exclusively, the entire produce of the minors estates rather than in the interests of the minor. It was averred that the advances were u