JUDGMENT

1. We are of opinion that the decree of the lower Court must be affirmed. The facts are that, on the 20th August 1912, the father of the present defendant, Bindeshri Prasad, executed a promissory-note in favour of the plaintiff for a certain sum.

2. At the time this promissory-note was executed the defendant's father was a ward of the Court of Wards and, consequently, it follows that the contract evidenced by this promissory-note was a void contract and that no debt resulted.

3. After the release of the estate from the Court of Wards and the death of the Defendant's father, the present defendant on the 19th August 1915 executed a bond for Rs. 3,000 in favour of the plaintiff.

4. It is found that this sum of Rs. 3,000 was made up of Rs. 1,800 advanced at the time and that the balance, Rs. 1,200, represented the sum which had been secured by the prom ssory-note executed by the defendant's father.

5. The present suit was on this bond and the Courts below have decreed the claim. The argument in the Court below, as here, is that in no case can the plaintiff recover this sum of Rs. 1,200 on the ground that there was an unlawful consideration.

6. We think this plea cannot be maintained