Jodhi Singh and Another vs Chhotu Mahto and Others

Foster, J.—The first point taken by the petitioners is that they being minors cannot be made parties liable under a decree for repayment of a loan taken by their natural guardian during their minority. The learned vakil calls attention to the case of Kashi Prasad Singh v. Akleshwari Prasad Narain Singh AIR 1921 Pat 336. That case can be at once distinguished. It was found to be not a suit for the price of necessaries. Now, here, according to the petition before me, the plaint alleges that the natural guardian was short of money to meet the household expenses of the family, and she borrowed Rs. 85 from the plaintiffs which is the subject-matter of Suit No. 19 of 1925, and she also borrowed Rs. 60 to defray the expenses in the roksati ceremony of her daughter which forms the subject-matter of Suit No. 18 of 1925; and the plaintiffs'' case was that as both the loans were for family necessity, and as the Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 (the present petitioners) were benefited thereby they were liable for the debts. As a matter of fact the plaint did not fairly express the position of the minor defendants in the last sentence.

The minor defendants cannot be personally liable; they cannot be arrested and dealt with in any of the usual methods adopted when a debt is being exacted from ordinary debtors. The only exception to the general rule protecting minors from decrees for debts and execution thereof is to be found in Hindu Law and in the general law, that where the expenses have been incurred by the natural guardian on behalf of the minor, and where that expenditure is necessary in the sense that it is an expenditure which have would to be met by persons in the social position of these minors, the expenditure shall in such circumstances be considered to be for necessaries: provided of course, that the guardian was obliged by justifying circumstances to borrow money. The case of Kashi Prasad Singh AIR 1921 Pat 336 is quite different. There was no mention of any supply of necessaries. Here the claim is obviously based primarily on an advance of money for certain necessary purposes; and secondly, upon the hand-note, which is produced in support of claim. Cases which are brought solely upon hand-notes, and not under the rules of Hindu law or the rules contained in such sections as 68 and 247 of the Contract Act, will exclude the special liability imposed by these provisions of Hindu Law and the Law of Contract. But here it has been found definitely in the judgment that the minors were supplied with money which was needed for purposes which can be considered to be necessary within the meaning of Section 68 of the Contract Act. The defendants cannot certainly be made judgment-debtors in the unrestricted sense, but their property will be liable under the special provisions which I have referred to.

There is another aspect of the matter. The guardian would certainly have to pay the dues under the hand note and would certainly be entitled to be reimbursed out of the family property; so this form of decree saves a multiplicity of suits. The next point taken is that the application of the Usurious Loans Act to this case was inadequate and that the interest should have been reduced still more, that is obviously not a matter for a Court acting u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. I am, therefore, satisfied that there is nothing in this case which the applicants have shown to be not in accordance with law. The petitions are dismissed with costs, hearing fee one gold mohur.