JUDGMENT

Nanavutty, J - This is a second civil appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Unao dated 29ih August 1931 decreeing the plaintiff's suit by reversing the judgment and decree of the Munsif of North Unao dated 16th May 1930 who had dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The defendant Bechu Singh has appealed. This appeal arises-out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,728-15-6 principal and interest brought by Baldeo Prasad, plaintiff-regpondent, against. Bechu Singh, defendant-appellant, under the guardianship of his mother Mt. Lachhmin. The plaintiff Baldeo Prasad set forth in his plaint that on 1st August 1926 Gajodhar Singh, father of defendant Bechu Singh, had borrowed Rs. 975 from the plaintiff and executed a pro-note and receipt bearing interest at 10 annas per cent per mensem: (see Ex. 5), that Gajodhar Singh and Bechu Singh defendant, formed a joint Hindu family, that Gajodhar Singh died on 8th August 1926 and on 12th September 1926 Gajodhar Singh'& widow, the mother and the natural and legal guardian of her son, defendant Bechu Singh, borrowed Rs. 400 bearing interest at 10 annas per cent per mensem from the plaintiff for the purpose of performing the funeral obsequies of her deceased husband Gajodhar Singh, that the plaintiff by way of precaution took a. pro-note and a receipt from Mt. Lachhmin, mother of Bechu Singh which is Ex. 6 in the present suit, and that on 28th July 1929 Mt. Lachhmin as the natural and legal guardian of her son Bechu Singh executed a pro-note for Rs. 1,675 in favour of the plaintiff in lieu of the two original pro-notes, Exs. 5 and 6 mentioned above. Upon these allegations the plaintiff prayed for a decree for Rs. 1,728-15-6 principal with interest and interest pendente lite and also future interest till the date of realization.

2. Various pleas were taken on behalf of the defendant in his written statement, but in the lower appellate Court the findings of the trial Court, that the deceased father of the defendant had borrowed Rs. 975 from the plaintiff in his lifetime, that after his death the defendant's mother had borrowed Rs. 400 from the plaintiff for the obsequies of her late husband that Mt. Lachhmin was competent to borrow Rs. 400 for the funeral rites of her husband, that the pro-note Ex. 1 dated 28th July 1929 was executed by Mt. Lachhmin in order to substitute a new contract for the old contracts under which the aforesaid two sums of money had been borrowed, had all been accepted by the defendants. It is therefore unnecessary to discuss the pleas taken in the written statement which relate to these matters as well as the plea regarding the admissibility of the pro-notes in evidence. It is conceded before us that the defendant-appellant was according to Hindu law under a pious obligation to pay both sums of money borrowed from the plaintiff, namely Rs. 975 and Rs. 400, by his father and mother; but the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant contends that as Ex. 1 the pro-note of 28th July 1929 does not mention the previous pro-notes and even the receipt Ex. 2 in respect of these pro-notes merely refers to the previous pro-notes but does not acknowledge the debts due under those pro-notes; that therefore there is no acknowledgment of the debts of August and September 1926 in this receipt within the meaning of Section 19, Lim. Act; that further Mt. Lachhmin was not the lawful guardian of the defendant-appellant within the meaning of Section 21, Lim. Act, and that the acknowledgment made by Mt. Lachhmin was not for the benefit of the minor.

3. In support of these contentions reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant upon a ruling reported in Ramaswamy Pillai v. Kasinatha Iyer, A.I.R. 1928 Mad 226, and upon a ruling of the Allahabad High Court reported in Ram Charan Das v. Gaya Prasad 1., (1908) 33 All 422. In the Madras ruling quoted above it is to be noted that the guardian was not the legal guardian of the minor under Hindu