JUDGMENT

Wazir Hasan, A J C - This is the defendant's appeal. The suit out of which it arises was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Barabanki to recover the sum of Rs. 1,500 from him on the foot of a mortgage dated 20th July 1908 by sale of the mortgaged property which is a 1 pie 13 kirants 1 jau 4 tills share situate in village Ambaur, pargana Partabganj, in the district of B barabanki. The mortgage in suit was executed during the defendant's minority by his mother and natural guardian, Mt. Jag(SIC), for a sum of Rs. 300 carrying interest at the rate of 1 per cent. par m(SIC) compoundable with six-monthly rests. The main plea in defence raised by the defendant was to the effect that there was no consideration for the mortgage in question and that if there was any its repayment was not binding on him for the reason that the guardian had incurred the loan ultra vires of her powers under the Hindu law and the rate of interest was excessive and unconscionable. The Court of first instance decreed the claim in its entirety. On appeal by the defendant to the Court of the Additional District Judge of Barabanki the decree of the first Court was modified and a decree for a sum of Rs. 90 only together with interest at the rate already mentioned was passed and in the event of default in payment, within six months, of the amount so decreed the hypothecated property was directed to be sold.

2. In the appeal to this Court the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant contends that the claim for the sum of Rs. 90 allowed by the lower Appellate Court was not justified on the ground that the loan of the sum of Rs. 90 was not proved to have been either for the need or for the benefit of the estate and that in any event the rate of interest which the defendant's mother and guardian agreed to pay was not shown to have been justified in the circumstances of this case.

3. The facts are as follows:The sum of Rs. 90 now in dispute was borrowed by the defendant's mother for the purpose, of purchasing bullocks with the object of cultivating the family sir lands. It appears from the evidence accepted as reliable by the lower Appellate Court that the sir cultivation was maintained by the defendant's father till his death. Soon after, his widow sold the bullocks which were used in the sir cultivation by her husband presumably on the ground that they had become old and infirm. Thus the sir cultivation was put a stop to and the lands were let out to tenants on grain rent. After an interval of about 4 or 5 years the defendant's mother thought of re-starting the sir cultivation and with that object in view she borrowed Rs. 90 now in dispute to purchase a fresh pair of bullocks. The bullocks were accordingly purchased and sir cultivation was started again.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant argues that the facts as proved and stated above neither establish a "need" nor a benefit to the estate", and therefore the debt in question is not binding on the defendant. The learned Counsel began to substantiate his argument by referring to the well-known decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Hunooman Persaud Pandey v. Mt. Babooee Munraj Koounweree [1856] 6 M.I.A. 393. In that case Lord Justice Knight Bruce in delivering the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council made the following observation:"The power of the manager for an infant heir to charge an estate not his own is under the Hindu Law a limited and qualified power. It can only be exercised rightly in case of need or for the benefit of the estate." This case and some other cases were considered at length by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the recent case of Palaniappa Chetty v. Deivasikamony Pandara A.I.R. 1917 P.C. 33 and in summing up the result of those authorities Lord Atkinson said-"No indication is to pe founded in any of them as to what is, in this connection, the precise nature of the things to be included under the description benefit to t