1. This was a suit to recover money due on a promissory note, dated the 12th July 1919, for Rs. 600, executed by Mt. Wahid-un-nissa as certificated guardian of her two minor sons. The promissory note in suit was executed in lieu of an earlier promissory note for Rs. 350 executed by the said person on the 17th July 1916.
2. It was found by both the Courts below that the promissory note in suit was genuine and for consideration and that the minors, namely, Defendants 1 and 2 were benefited by the loan. Both Courts also found that the original loan of 1916 was taken by the mother for the purpose of financing a certain litigation for the benefit of her two minor sons. The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's claim but the lower appellate Court allowed the defendants' appeal and dismissed the suit as against Defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that the guardian was not able to bind the minors estate by means of a promissory note which did not expressly purport to bind the estate. The question which we have to decide in appeal is whether the guardian was able to impose a liability upon the minors estate for the loan incurred on their behalf as evidenced by the promissory note.
3. The learned Counsellor the appellant has referred us to several authorities showing that the estate of the minors is held liable for a loan contracted on behalf of the minors if the loan has been contracted for their benefit. In the case of Bhawal Sahu v. Baijnath Partab Narain Singh  35 Cal. 320, the Court held that where there is a promise by a guardian of a minor to pay money which has been expended for necessaries, the estate of the minor will be liable not by reason of the promise, but because the money has been supplied. This is in accordance with the general principles embodied in Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act. In this case we have the finding of both the Courts below that the loan was taken for the benefit of the minors and the loan may well be regarded as a necessity since it was for the purpose of defending litigation. It appears also that the suit which was defended was dismissed and the minors, therefore, actually did benefit by the loan.
4. The rulings in Krishna Chettiar v. Nagamani Ammal  39 Mad. 915; Subramania Ayyar v. Arununga Chetty  26 Mad. 330, Sundararaja Ayyangar v. Pattanathusami  17 Mad. 306; all show that when a loan is taken by a guardian on behalf of a minor for the purpose of some necessity or for the benefit of a minor's estate then the minor's estate can be held liable.
5. On equitable grounds the plaintiff is entitled to recover his money and in our opinion there is no good authority for the view taken by the Court below that the estate of the minors can in no case be liable for the debt whether, or not it was taken for the minors' benefit. The original loan was for Rs. 350 only and we think that it would be fair to allow simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the original loan in 1916 up to the date of suit and thereafter at 6 per cent. up till the date of realization. 'We, therefore, allow the appeal, and decree in the plaintiff's favour the principal sum of Rs. 350 with interest at 6 per cent. calculated as from the 17th July 1916 up to the date of realization. As the suit is decreed on grounds, which were not 'expressly taken by the plaintiff in the Courts below, the parties will bear their own costs throughout in all Courts.