Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. The: plaintiff filed this suit on a promissory note dated June 10, 1906. The promissory note was taken by his guardian when he was a minor. The plaintiff sought to prove that he. was entitled to sue on the note within three years of his attaining majority. It does appear from the. Roznama of the case that after it had been called for hearing on several occasions, Exhibit 7 A was produced purporting to be a certificate as regards the majority of the plaintiff having occurred on December 9, 1919. The Judge, however, remarks:--
Now minor having attained majority sues. But his birth certificate or evidence to prove his minority and to tiring claim to time is not produced. This is a stale claim of 1906. Hence plaintiff must Have filed his suit with all evidence ready. It is six months since suit, there is no evidence to support plaint.
2. I doubt very much whether Exh. 7 A could be considered as evidence that the plaintiff's birth date was December 9, 1898. But the real point in the case has not been observed, namely, that Section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act does not apply. The note was given to his guardian, and his guardian could have sued on it. The minor was not entitled to institute a suit on the note. That was decided in Ramanuja Ayyangar v. Sadagopa Ayyangar I.L.R. (1904) Mad. 205. The guardian having taken the note, he is the person entitled to sue on it, and the suit would be barred if it was not brought within the ordinary period of limitation. The only right which the minor could have on his coming of age would be the right to sue his guardian for negligence. Rule discharged with costs.