Ramen Chetty V. Silva

Present: Wood Renton J.

RAMEN CHETTY v. SILVA

132-C. R. Colombo, 26,251

Minor-Contracts to the benefit of minor-Ratification.

The Roman-Dutch law of ratification of contracts by a minor is in force in Ceylon. Contracts which are neither certainly to a minor's prejudice nor necessarily for his benefit are neither void nor absolutely valid, but are voidable and capable of confirmation after majority.

Obiter, where a minor borrows money exclusively for his father's use, the fact that the minor was living with his father, and that the money was to be applied to get his father employment, which would add to his ability to maintain the minor, would not be sufficient to make the contract a beneficial one to the minor within the meaning of the common law.

THE facts are set out in the judgment.

H. A. Jayewardene (with him Cooray), for the defendant, appellant.-The defendant was a minor at the time he signed the note. The contract was one which was not for the minor's benefit. The evidence shows that the money was borrowed for the exclusive benefit of the father of the minor. The minor cannot, therefore, be sued on the note. Vellasamy Pulle v. Peries et al.1

A contract by a minor cannot under our law be rendered valid by ratification. The Roman-Dutch law as to ratification of contracts entered by minors does not appear to have been introduced into Ceylon. In Gunasekera Hamine v. Don Baron2, it was held that a donation cannot be ratified by a minor when he comes of age.

W. H. Perera, for the plaintiff, respondent.-The minor paid Rs. 25 after he attained majority. Under the Roman-Dutch law that would amount to ratification. (3 Maas. 17; 1 Maas. 247.) The Roman-Dutch law on the subject is in force in Ceylon.

In Gunasekera Hamine v. Don Baron2 the donation was a donation of land by a minor; it was held that such a donation was void, and not voidable. See judgment of Bonser C.J.

Cur. adv. vult.

May 31, 1912. Wood Renton J.-

The plaintiff-respondent sued the defendant-appellant in this action to recover a sum of Rs. 200 on a promissory note. The

1 (1906) 3 Bal. 3.                                                                                             2 (1902) 5 N. L. R. 273.

appellant pleaded that he was a minor at the time of the making of the note. There was no replication by the respondent, but the issues raised two further points, namely, whether, assuming the minority at the time of making the note, the note was invalid, and whether the appellant had not ratified the obligation by a subsequent payment of Rs. 25 upon the note. The learned Commissioner of Requests held that minority had been proved; that the loan was beneficial to the appellant, and that, therefore, the note was not invalid; and further, that the appellant had ratified it after majority by the subsequent payment above referred to. There is no appeal in this case upon the facts. I am doubtful whether, upon the findings of the learned Commissioner of Requests, the loan in respect of which the note was granted could be said to have been for the minor's benefit. The Commissioner of Requests accepts the statement of the appellant that he borrowed the money exclusively for his father's use. If that were so, I do not think that the mere fact that the minor was living with his father, and that the money was to be applied to get his father employment, which would add to his ability to maintain the minor, would be sufficient to make the contract a beneficial one within the meaning of the common law. It is unnecessary, however, to decide this point, as the appellant also states, and this is much more probable, that he required the money for himself. The loan was, therefore, beneficial and could be ratified. I think that the decision of the Commissioner of Requests on the issue of ratification is clearly right. The witness, Ramen Chetty, father-in-law of Sollamuttu Chetty, the payee on the note, now deceased, proved

Click Here to Read the rest of this document