Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is possible that the cases which are said in the Order of Reference to conflict with waghela Rajsanji v. Shekh Masludin (1887) I.L.R. 11 Bom. 551 may be brought under one or the other of the above categories. That is the view taken by my Lord and that is certainly one way of reconciling the Privy Council decision with the mass of cases which have been decided since that ruling.

7. However, I shall shortly point out that the decisions in Madras and in the other presidencies can be based on a broader ground. I do not wish to take a narrow view of Waghela Rajsanji v. Shekh Masludin (1887) I.L.R. 11 B. 551. Mr. Justice Woodroffe in Mir Sarwarajan v. Fakharuddin Mahomed Chowdhry (1906) I.L.R. 34 C. 168 states that what the Judicial Committee intended to lay down was that an onerous covenant cannot be imposed by the guardian upon the person or property of the minor. That is also my view. Although this decision was overruled by the Judicial Committee in Mir Sarwarajan v. Fakharuddin Mahomed Chowdhry (1911) I.L.R. 89 C. 232 on another point, I do not think this View of the law was taken exception to in the argument before or in the judgment of the Privy Council. The various English decisions dealing with trustees and executors to which our attention was drawn in the course of the argument lay down that a trustee or executor has no power to bind the beneficiary by personal contracts--In re Johnson Shearman v. Robinson (1880) 15 Ch. D. 548 and In re Evans : Evans v. Evans (1887) 34 Ch. D. 597. I do not think the bona fides of the guardian is an element for consideration. But where an infant's estate would be liable but for the interposition of the guardian, I fail to see why the latter undertaking that liability should not bind the estate. After examining Waghela Rajsanji v. Shekh Masludin (1887) I.L.R. 11 B. 551 once again, I do not think their Lordships intended to lay down that under no circumstances can a minor be held liable for the acts of his guardian. Almost all the High Courts have, since Waghela Rajsanji v. Shekh Masludin (1887) I.L.R. 11 B. 551, held that the liability of the minor under the Hindu Law is not affected by the fact that the guardian has incurred that obligation. Nathuram v. Shoma Chhagan (1890) I.L.R. 14 B 562 Maharana Shri Ranmalsinghji v. Vadilal Vakhatchand (1894) I.L.R. 20 B 61 Siva Narayan Ghosh v. Kamakhya Ghose (1918) 28 Indian Cases 877 (Cal.) Sunaararaja Ayyangar v. Pattanathuswami Tevar (1894) I.L.R. 17 M. 306 Sinaya Pillai v. Munisami Ayyan (1899) I.L.R. 22 M. 289 Subramania Aiyar v. Arumuga Chetti (1902) I.L.R. 26 M. 330 Srimath Daivasikamani Pandarasannadhi v. Noor Mahomed Routhan (1907) I.L.R. 31 M. 47 Duraisami Reddi v. Muthial Reddi (1908) I.L.R. 81 M. 458 Krishna Chettiar v. Nagamani Ammal (1915) I.L.R. 39 M. 915 and Venkitasamy Naicker v. Muthusamy Pillai (1917) 34 M.L.J. 177 have all taken this view. Sarjeant, C.J., Telang, J., Mookerjee, J. and Muthuswami Aiyar, J. are among the Judges who have enunciated this view.