W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Tyrrell, J.
1. We are of opinion that the respondent was not a minor in June 1875, when he executed the bond on which this suit has been brought. He had then attained the full age of sixteen years, and had thus reached his majority under the Muhammadan Law, which was applicable to him before Act IX of 1875 came into force. He was consequently competent in respect of age to make a contract in the sense of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act.
2. We hold that the 'law applicable to' the respondent under Section 2, Clause (c) of Act IX of 1875, was the Muhammadan Law, and not the statute law contained in Section 26, Act XL of 1858, because it seems to us that the rule of that section is limited by its terms to 'the purposes of that Act,' which provides exclusively for the care of the persons and property of one class of minors, that is to say, minors possessed of property which has not been taken under the protection of the Court of Wards. It is to such persons, and to them only, when they have been brought under the operation of the Act, as in it provided, that in our view the prolongation of nonage under Section 26 applies. We have not overlooked the rulings to the contrary effect on this point, in forming the conclusion above stated. We may observe, however, that no ruling has been 'cited to us in which it has been held in terms that a Muhammadan who had not been made amenable to the provisions of Act XL of 1858 was a minor for the purposes of making a contract till he had reached the age of eighteen years.
3. We therefore set aside the decree of the Court below, and decree this appeal with costs.