1. The appellant, in this second appeal, is defendant 1. The plaintiff, as assignee for collection, sued the appellant and his mother, defendant 2, on a promissory note executed by the latter as his guardian for a sum of Rs. 1,500. The District Munsif found that the note was not genuine. On appeal the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit, holding not only that the note was genuine but also that the consideration for it was advanced for purposes binding on defendant 1s estate. His findings, so far as they are findings of fact, we must accept. It is now argued, on the footing of these findings, that defendant 2 had no power to impose a personal liability on her minor son. The question at issue seems to us to be concluded by the opinion of the majority of the Full Bench in Ramajogayya v. Jagannadhan [1919] 42 Mad. 185 which was that a decree could be passed against a minors estate on a contract entered into by his guardian in a case in which the estate would have been liable for the obligation incurred by the guardian under the personal law to which the minor was subject. They held, as a result, that a decree could be passed against the estate of a Hindu minor for a debt contrac