https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310276 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 barred by the statute of limitation. However, the HC dismissed the suit against the minor defendants, finding them not liable under Mahomedan law, as their brother, not being a legal guardian, could not bind them. The court also determined that the purdanashin ladies understood the transaction. The respondent was awarded two-thirds of the appeal costs, and the cross-objection was dismissed without costs. en-us Thu, 14 Jan 1937 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Oct 2023 17:49:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310276 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 barred by the statute of limitation. However, the HC dismissed the suit against the minor defendants, finding them not liable under Mahomedan law, as their brother, not being a legal guardian, could not bind them. The court also determined that the purdanashin ladies understood the transaction. The respondent was awarded two-thirds of the appeal costs, and the cross-objection was dismissed without costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 14 Jan 1937 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310276