Pupooth Alias Komancheri Rarichan ... vs Vayisravanath Manakkal Raman ... on 22 December, 1922
and Narayana Rao v. Venkata Subba Rao (1919) 38 M.L.J. 77. It was however argued that the lease and the mortgage were one and the same transaction and that as the creditor the 1st defendant was not prepared to lend except on condition that such a lease should be taken it was justified by necessity in the same manner as the mortgage. This argument cannot be supported for even if the two be parts of the same transaction there is no proof that there was any necessity to borrow at all. There was no pressure from the previous mortgagee. The action of a de facto guardian, as 2nd defendant was, will be binding on the minor's property only if it is for the minor's benefit or necessity. That is not proved in this case and the lease so far as the plaintiff is included in it is therefore not valid.