Skip to content


Lakshmi Ammal and ors. Vs. Ratna Naicker - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Mad589
AppellantLakshmi Ammal and ors.
RespondentRatna Naicker
Cases ReferredVenkatasuryanarayana v. Ramayya
Excerpt:
- .....for the benefit of the minors. it has been argued that this is a case of a guardian carrying on a family business for the benefit of the minors after the death of the head of the family. i do not think it was 8 family business. it was a business which was personal to the licensee and the right to carry it on had to be renewed each year and certainly expired when the licensee died. the question then is, had the mother and guardian of the minors any right to embark on the 'business of being a licensee and getting a relation to become licensee for the benefit of the minors. the ruling in venkatasuryanarayana v. ramayya 1921 mad 98 is clear authority that she had not. it follows that she had no authority to make the minor's property liable. the order of the lower court holding the minor's.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Cornish, J.

1. I think this revision petition must be allowed. The promissory not in question was executed by the mother and guardian on behalf of herself and her minor sons defendants 2 to 4. The note says so. The money was borrowed for the purpose of paying Government dues in respect of the license to carry on a toddy shop. This particular business had been carried on by the minor's father as licensee up to the time of his death. But when he died the license was obtained in the name of one Appadurai, a relation of the minors, but in reality for the benefit of the minors. It has been argued that this is a case of a guardian carrying on a family business for the benefit of the minors after the death of the head of the family. I do not think it was 8 family business. It was a business which was personal to the licensee and the right to carry it on had to be renewed each year and certainly expired when the licensee died. The question then is, had the mother and guardian of the minors any right to embark on the 'business of being a licensee and getting a relation to become licensee for the benefit of the minors. The ruling in Venkatasuryanarayana v. Ramayya 1921 Mad 98 is clear authority that she had not. It follows that she had no authority to make the minor's property liable. The order of the lower Court holding the minor's property liable is set aside, and this petition is allowed with costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //