Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS FULL BENCH
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.
Myneni Pundarikakshayya
Versus
Kondamudi Sreeramulu
Decided On : 21.08.1945
guardian - Hindu minor - 1. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - The Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - 2. The court discussed the powers of a de facto guardian of a Hindu minor, the authority to execute promissory notes on behalf of the minor, and the liability of the minor's estate for debts incurred by the guardian. The court also considered the issue of ratification and the granting of a charge over the minor's properties in favor of the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal concerned the authority of a de facto guardian to execute promissory notes on behalf of a Hindu minor and the liability of the minor's estate for the debts incurred by the guardian. The plaintiff, upon attaining majority, challenged the actions of the de facto guardian in renewing promissory notes and conveying properties in discharge of the debts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the de facto guardian had no authority in law to execute promissory notes on behalf of the minor, and therefore, there was no consideration for the conveyance to the defendant. The court also held that the de facto guardian could not extend the period of limitation in respect of the debts contracted by the adoptive father, and consequently, those debts were barred at the time of the conveyance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the de facto guardian had the legal authority to execute promissory notes on behalf of the minor and bind the minor's estate. The court also considered the issue of ratification and the granting of a charge over the minor's properties in favor of the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a de facto guardian cannot bind the minor's estate by executing promissory notes in the minor's name. It was established that the de facto guardian had no authority in law to execute promissory notes on behalf of the minor, and the debts incurred were barred at the time of the conveyance. The court also rejected the plea of ratification and granted a charge over the properties in favor of the defendant for the amount paid to a third party.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and a decree for possession was granted subject to the charge on the properties in favor of the defendant in respect of the amount paid to a third party. The plaintiff was also awarded mesne profits at a specified rate until possession was given.
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.
1. The main question in this appeal is whether a person, who without lawful authority takes upon himself the management 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 a necessary purpose and thereby bind the minors estate. The person who without lawful authority takes charge of a minors estate is commonly referred to as the de facto guardian and it will be convenient to use the expression in this judgment.
2. The appellant is the adopted son of one Chelamaiya Chowdri, who died on the 9th January, 1925. Chelamaiya Chowdri was survived by two widows and by his will dated the 20th November, 1924, he gave the junior widow, Sri Krishnamma, power to adopt a son to him. She exercised the power in favour of the plaintiff soon after the testators death. The validity of the adoption is not in question. Sri Krishnamma died in the month of November 1928 and after her death the plaintiffs natural father, China Seshayya, entered upon the management of his estate. In Chennappa v. Onkarappa AIR1940Mad33 , a Full Bench of this Court held that the Hindu law only recognises the father or the mother of a minor as his lawful guardian and that when both of them are dead there can be no dejure guardian without an order of the Court. China Seshayya had not been appointed the plaintiffs guardian by an order of Court and therefore he had no authority to manage the minors estate.
3. On the 1st February, 1923, Chelamaiya Chowdri borrowed Rs. 3,000 from the defendant, who was his pleader. On the 23rd April, 1925, Sri Krishnamma, then the dejure guardian of the minor, renewed this promissory note. With interest the debt had by that time amounted to Rs. 3,802. On the same date she executed another promissory note in the name of the minor in respect of a further loan of Rs. 1,200. On the 23rd April, 1928, Sri Krishnamma executed a promissory note for Rs. 6,802-11-6 in renewal of the two promissory notes of the 23rd April, 1925. On the 22nd June, 1931, China Seshayya, the de facto guardian, purported to renew that promissory note. The debt then amounted to Rs. 9,251-11-6. It will be observed that this promissory note was executed more than three years after the date on which the de jure guardian had signed the last promissory note. The explanation of this is that the period of limitation expired during the Court vacation and the payee had the right of instituting a suit on the re-opening of the Court. The new promissory note was executed on that day in order to avoid a suit being filed.
4. On the 1st September, 1919, Chelamaiya Chowdri executed a promissory note in favour of one Gutta Punniah for Rs. 4,082-9-6. Chelamaiya Chowdri renewed this promissory note on the 27th August, 1922, by the execution of a fresh note. On the 12th July, 1925, and on the 8th July, 1928, Sri Krishnamma executed promissory notes in acknowledgment of the debt. On the 12th November, 1928, the de facto guardian purported to renew the promissory note of the 12th July, 1925, and on the nth November, 1931, he signed a fresh promissory note in the minors name for Rs. 9,497-14-9 as a renewal of the promissory note of the 12th November, 1928.
5. On the 2nd June, 1932, the de facto guardian conveyed the Immovable properties in suit to the defendant for the sum of Rs. 14,873. Only Rs. 75 was paid in cash and this sum 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 which the de facto guardian had executed in favour of the defendant on the 22nd June, 1931, the amount of the debt then being Rs. 10,207-6-6, and the payment of Rs. 4,590-9-6 to Gutta Punniah in part discharge of the promissory note which the-de facto guardian had executed in his favour on the nth November, 1931.
6. On the 9th December, 1937, the plaintiff attained his majority and on the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
