1937 (1) TMI 17 - HC - Indian Laws

Judgment: No misrepresentation in hand-note; suit not time-barred; minor defendants not liable under Mahomedan law.

Muhammad Moizuddin Mia and Ors. Versus. Nalini Bala Devi

The HC upheld the Subordinate Judge's decision, confirming that there was no misrepresentation in the execution of the hand-note and that the suit was not ... - Issues Involved:1. Misrepresentation in the execution of the hand-note.2. Limitation period for the suit.3. Liability of minor defendants under Mahomedan law.4. Awareness and understanding of the transaction by purdanashin ladies.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Misrepresentation in the Execution of the Hand-Note:The defendants argued that the promissory note was a result of misrepresentation, claiming that the sum of about Rs. 7,500 was not actually due from Haji. However, the Subordinate Judge found no misrepresentation and confirmed that the money was indeed due. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that there was abundant evidence on record showing the debt was contracted by Haji. The defendants did not seriously pursue this point in their appeal, and the High Court found no reason to displace the lower court's finding.2. Limitation Period for the Suit:The defendants contended that the suit was barred by the statute of limitation, arguing that the payment of Rs. 100 on 28th August 1929 was not made, and even if it was made, it was not effective under the amended provisions of the Limitation Act. The High Court examined Section 20 of the Limitation Act and found that the payment was indeed made, as evidenced by the endorsement on the hand-note signed by all the defendants except the minors. This admission shifted the burden to the defendants to prove the admission was untrue, which they failed to do. The High Court also rejected the argument that the acknowledgment of payment must be contemporaneous with the payment or before the expiry of the limitation period, citing decisions from other High Courts that supported the view that acknowledgment could be made even after the limitation period had expired.3. Liability of Minor Defendants Under Mahomedan Law:The High Court found that the Subordinate Judge erred in holding the minor defendants liable for the hand-note. According to Mahomedan law, the brother of the minors was not a legal guardian and could not impose any obligation on them. The High Court referred to Sir Dinshaw Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council's decision in Imambandi v. Haji Mutsaddi, which clarified that an unauthorized guardian, such as a brother, could not bind the minors by executing a hand-note. Consequently, the suit against the minor defendants was dismissed.4. Awareness and Understanding of the Transaction by Purdanashin Ladies:The defendants argued that the purdanashin ladies (defendants 4, 5, and 8) did not understand the nature of the transaction when they executed the hand-note. The High Court reiterated the established principle that it must be shown affirmatively that the document was explained to purdanashin ladies and that they had full knowledge of the transaction. Evidence from Nandalal's daughter indicated that the document was read over and explained to the purdanashin ladies, and the defendants did not provide any evidence to the contrary. The High Court concluded that the document was properly explained and understood by the adult purdanashin women, dismissing this point of contention.Conclusion:Except for the liability of the minor defendants, the High Court upheld the Subordinate Judge's decision. The suit against the minor defendants was dismissed, and the rest of the judgment stood. The respondent was awarded two-thirds of the costs of the appeal due to the partial success of the defendants. The cross-objection was dismissed without costs.