Madhavan Nair, J.
1. It is not disputed that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with two bulls; the defendant being a minor he is liable to pay for them only if the plaintiff is able to show that these were 'necessaries ' to the defendant. This position is accepted by both of the parties. The plaintiff has given evidence on the question. It appears tome that the learned District Munsif has not given proper consideration to the evidence on record because in his view 'bulls' can never be considered 'necessaries.' There is no law laying down such an absolute proposition. The question in each particular case will have to be decided with regard to the evidence let in by the parties on the question. I cannot for these reasons accept the finding of the learned District Munsif as a satisfactory finding. I would, therefore, ask him to review the evidence in the light of Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act and submit a fresh finding on the question whether the sale of bulls to the defendant in this case can be considered to have been for the necessaries of the infant. These will be submitted within four weeks, and ten days will be allowed for filing objections. (In compliance with the order in the above judgment the District Munsif submitted the finding called for).
2. The District Munsif has found that the sale of the bulls was for the necessaries of the defendant. There is evidence to support this finding. Accepting this finding I set aside the decree of the lower Court and give the plaintiff a decree as prayed for with costs throughout. The decree will be against the properties of the defendant.