Padma Krishna Chettiar alias Krishna Iyer vs Nagamani Ammal

Seshagiri Ayyar, J.—The finding in this case is that the mother of the defendant as his guardian borrowed from the plaintiff the amount sued

on, and that it was spent for purposes binding on him, The question of law argued very strenuously by Mr. Bhashyam Ayyangar is that as the

promissory note executed by the mother was not signed by her as guardian, she alone is liable on the note and that the decree against the

defendant is wrong. He relies on the language of Section 28 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and contends that the principle which renders the

agent personally liable on a contrast entered into on behalf of the principal applies to the case of guardians also. The short answer to this contention

is that, a3 the Act contains no provision relating to notes signed by guardians whereas it specifically legislates for the case of agents in Section 28

and for legal representatives in Section 30, Courts should not by analogy extend these provisions to a deliberately unprovided case. The learned

vakil drew our attention to Section 26 of the Bills of Exchange Act as enunciating the principle applicable by law merchant to all cases of

representation. Apart from the question whether Section 26 was intended to apply to documents executed by guardians, it is evident from the

omission of the general section and the inclusion of specific provisions like those to which we have already referred, that the Indian legislature has

not thought fit to lay down any general rules applicable to all cases of representation. The case of one person signing for another who is sui juris is

not pari passu with that of a person executing a document on behalf of another who is incapable of contracting.

The decisions in R.P. Koneti Naicker, and Others Vs. Jatu Gopala Aiyar and Another, , P. Govindan Nair Vs. K. Nana Menon, and Yinuganti

China Venkata Rayanim v. Kotagiri Venkata Narasimha Royanim (1904) 14 M.L.T. 502 construe the provision relating to agents; they can afford

no assistance to us in deciding the present case, Ramaswami Mudaliar v. Muthuswami Ayyar Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 224 of 1914 is not a

pronouncement on a question of law. The learned Judges were not prepared to accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the debt was

contracted by the mother in her capacity as guardian.

As we are not hampered by any legislative provision regarding documents executed on behalf of a minor, we must be guided by the principles of

Hindu law in deciding such cases. The true; teat regarding the binding nature of a guardian''s contract was laid down in the well-known case--

Hunoomanpersaud Panday v. Mussumat Babooee Manraj Koonweree (1856) 6 M.I.A. 393. Even where the relationship of principal and agent

was found to exist in transactions entered into by managers of Hindu families, it was decided by a Full Bench of this Court that Section 28 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act did not affect the liability of the junior members. The true principle is that where the validity of a transaction has to be

looked at from two standpoints, each of them should be regarded as supplementing the other. The doctrine of Hindu law is not to be ignored

because a contract coming under its purview is also regulated by another provision of law. The decision in Subba Narayana Vathiyar v.

Ramaswami Aiyar ILR (1907) Mad. 88 does not differ from the ruling in Krishna Aiyar v. Krishnasami Aiyar ILR (1900) Mad. 597. On the other

hand the decision in Subramania Aiyar v. Arumuga Chetty ILR (1903) Mad. 330 is directly in point. Mr. Bhashyam Ayyangar sought to distinguish

this case on the ground that the claim in it was for the debt evidenced by the note and not on the note itself. We do not think this distinction has any

substance. Moreover, paragraph 4 of the plaint in this case refers to the binding character of the debt; vide Sobhanadri Appa Rao v. Sriramulu

ILR (1894) Mad. 221. We must, therefore, hold that the estate of the minor is liable for the debt.

We think the decree of the Court below must be modified, as there can be no personal decree against the defendant; Sanka Krishna Murthi v.

The Bank of Burma ILR (1912) Mad. 692.

Subject to the above modification the Civil Revision Petition will be dismissed with costs.