1935 (9) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eration consisted entirely of past consideration. Between 8th October 1920 and 1st August 1930 the defendant executed a series of promissory notes, receipts or acknowledgments in favour of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff eventually admitted that no fresh advance was made to the defendant after 2nd May 1923 when the receipt or acknowledgment, Ex. P-6, for ₹ 14,776-12-9 was executed. The subsequent documents were merely renewals of that liability. It is admitted that ₹ 11,036 was advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of the execution of the first document, Ex. P-5, and the plaintiff contends that there has been no fresh advance since then. The question therefore is whether the promissory note in suit can be trace....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....924 Nag 132=78 I.C. 343 =20 N.L.R. 87. S. 11, Contract Act, lays down that a person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject. This section and its results were discussed at length by a Full Bench of this Court in 13 N.L.R. 130 Mt. Salu Bai v. Bajat Khan, 1917 Nag 215=42 I.C. 200=13 N.L.R. 130(FB). Stanyon, A.J.C. in the course of his judgment remarked as follows : Persons declared incompetent are those who (i) have not attained majority; (ii) are of unsound mind : or (iii) are disqualified by law. A minor may contract after he has attained majority. An insane person may contract dar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his guardian, or by himself after attainment of majority, and that such agreements were open to treatment by the Courts in accordance with the doctrines of equity. It will suffice to refer to the cases of 18 Cal 259 Mahamed Arif v. Saraswati, (1891) 18 Cal 259 and 23 Bom 146 Sadashiv v. Trimbak, (1899) 23 Bom 146 as instances in which that view was propounded and adopted. But the dictum has been completely and finally overruled by the Judicial Committee in 30 Cal 539 Mohori v. Dharmodas, (1903) 30 Cal 539=30 I.A. 114 (PC) and no student of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, can doubt the soundness of the Privy Council interpretation of S. 11 thereof in that case. The instance before their Lordships was that of a minor, but a careful perusal of ....