Whether documents jointly executed by a minor and an adult would be void?

BEFORE THE PRIVY COUNCIL

Decided On: 21.03.1916

Appellants: Jamna Bai
Vs.
 Vasanta Rao

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Shaw, John Edge and Lawrence Jenkins, JJ.

Contract - Execution of bond - Suit to execute bond to Plaintiff dismissed - Hence, present appeal - Held, it was considered that stripped of all facts was not relevant, plea advanced on behalf of J was that one of two promisors could plead minority and consequent immunity of other as a bar to promisee's claim against Plaintiff - This was a position that could not be maintained, and plea had been properly rejected by High Court - Appeal dismissed.

Documents jointly executed by a minor and an adult would be void  against minor,but it would be enforceable against major who has jointly executed the same provided there is a joint promise to pay by such a minor person 

Citation: (1916)L.R. 43 I.A. 99, 34Ind. Cas.213, 1916-3-LW540,(1916)39 Mad 409(PC)

1. These appeals arise out of a suit on a money bond of June 16, 1897, expressed to be executed to the present plaintiff, Vasanta Rao, by the defendant Sethuram Saheb, "represented by his grandmother and guardian," and by the defendant Jamna Bai.

2. Sethuram was then a minor, and this was apparent on the face of the bond. The substantial question, therefore, now in dispute is whether Sethuram is under a personal obligation to pay the plaintiff the amount he claims, and if not, whether this furnishes Jamna Bai with an answer to the suit. The plea that the suit is premature has no real value. It does not touch the merits, and both Courts agree that the objection is not well founded. This view is in accord with the meaning placed by the defendants themselves in their written statements on the phrase in the bond which is decisive of this point, and their Lordships see no reason to doubt its accuracy. This plea therefore fails. On the more important question the two Courts are not in complete agreement. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree against both defendants. The High Court on appeal upheld the decree against Jamna Bai, but dismissed the suit against Sethuram. This has led to the two present appeals. Though the circumstances connected with the passing of the bond are intricate, the real issues involved in the suit are simple. To establish Sethuram's liability the plaintiff relies on Section 462 of the Code of 1882. But even if compliance with the terms of this section would have established the claim against Sethuram--a point on which no opinion is now expressed--this in no way helps the plaintiff, for the requirements of the section have not been observed in protection of Sethuram. The High Court, therefore, rightly held him not liable to the plaintiff under the bond. But this furnishes Jamna Bai with no answer to the plaintiff's claim against her. Stripped of all that is not relevant, the plea advanced on her behalf is that one of two promisors can plead the minority and consequent immunity of the other as a bar to the promisee's claim against him. This is a position that cannot be maintained, and the plea has been properly rejected by the High Court. On possible developments in the future it would be wrong for their Lordships to make any pronouncement; they will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that each of these appeals should be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.