A minor is not personally liable for 'necessaries' advanced to them under S. 68, Contract Act, and interest should not be allowed in such cases.

Grille, J C—The plaintiff sued to recover money in respect of goods advanced to defendant 1, a minor, including a sum of Rs. 63 lent to effect necessary repairs to the minor's house. This sum is said to have been lent as plaintiff and the minor were living next door to each other. Along with the minor as defendants were impleaded his mother and three of the minor's servants through whom the goods were supplied from time to time. The mother was discharged from the suit and a decree was passed in the following terms:

I pass a decree for Rs. 221-0-9 plus costs against defendants 1, 3, 4, and 5 jointly and severally, defendant 3 being responsible for Rs. 173-11-6, defendant 4 being responsible for Rs. 30-6-0 and defendant 5 being responsible for Rs. 16-15-0. Defendant 2 is discharged. Defendant 1 is not liable personally.

2. The application has been filed by the minor defendant 1, who is now major, and two of the servants, defendants 4 and 5. No application has been made by defendant 3.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants is in a somewhat invidious position in attempting to disclaim the liability of the minor's estate and at the same time the liability of the two defendants who purchased the goods for him. In so far as the claim is against the possible interpretation of the decree that each of the defendants except the minor is liable for the whole of the amount, the application is correct as the servants certainly cannot be held liable for anything more than the purchases they themselves made. I doubt if the Judge of the Court below intended to imply anything more than this, but the wording of the concluding paragraph of his judgment is open to the interpretation.

4. Counsel for the applicants however has thrown over the case of the servants in respect of their individual liability by saying that and does not dispute that Liability on the separates amounts. The application therefore is in respect of the minor applicant alone. It cannot be disputed that the item were ''necessaries'' under S. 68, Contract Act, and the allegation that the cloth and cash advances were for the minor's business as such were not necessaries is a wrong interpretation of the Court's phraseology in the judgment. It is clear that the reference to the minor's business does not relate to the money lending business, but means for the minor's use. There is undoubtedly evidence on which the Court is entitled to hold that these goods were in fact supplied, and the plaintiff is consequently entitled to be reimbursed.

5. The applicants however must succeed to the extent of their claim that no interest should have been allowed. Apart from the question that the claim, apart from the loan of Rs. 63, is in respect of money withheld for goods supplied, the claim does not arise out of a contract at all, but under the special provisions of S. 68, Contract Act, and the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement out of the minor's estate and nothing more. As the petty item of Rs. 63 was borrowed for necessary purposes, this item would also fall within the same category.

6. The decree of the lower Court is accordingly varied by deducting the claim for interest. Costs will be proportionate in the lower Court. I make no order as to costs in this Court.