(1) Purely Personal Covenants:
In Waghela Raj Sanji v. Sheik Masiuddin, 11 Bom. 551. (PC), it was held that the guardian cannot bind the minor by a purely personal covenant.
In that case the mother and guardian of a minor conveyed certain villages which were part of a taluqdari estate for the discharge of debts which were chargeable upon the estate and, stating that those villages were rent free, covenanted that if the villages should be assessed to Government revenues he (the guardian) and her minor son (the ward) would be liable to pay the purchaser the amount of such Government revenue.
Those villages were later declared assessable to revenue and the question then arose as to whether the minor could be made liable to repay the amount which the purchaser of the villages had been called upon to pay. Holding that so far as the suit was based on the personal liability of the minor’s taluqdar, it must fail, the Privy Council observed as follows:
Image Source: thesaltcollective.org
ADVERTISEMENTS:
“It would be a very improper thing to allow the guardian to make covenants in the name of his ward so as to impose a personal liability upon the ward”.
No personal liability can be imposed upon the ward, that is, even after attaining majority he cannot be arrested and put in civil prison for the liability. But can his estate at least be made liable? If the personal covenant (example, a simple money debt) of the guardian is justified by the doctrine of necessity or benefit to the estate, the minor’s estate may be made liable.
Thus, in Watson & Co. v. Sham Lai Mittar, 15 Cal. 8 (PC), the Privy Council held an arrangement entered into by the guardian for enhancement of rent payable by the minor tenant for his leasehold and gave effect to the Kabuliyat for enhanced rents as one binding on the estate of the minor.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In regard to contracts of the guardian, as in regard to his alienations, the true test of the binding character of the guardian’s transaction is the existence of necessity or benefit, i.e., the test laid down in Hanuman Prasad’s case. This is pointed out by the Madras High Court in Annamalai v. Muthuswami, ILR 1939 Mad. 891.
In that case the natural guardian of a Hindu minor contracted a simple money debt for necessary purposes of the minor. It was held that the debt was enforceable against the minor’s estate. Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J., pointed out that this is not a personal liability in the English Law sense, i.e., “in the sense that the person of the minor even after majority can be arrested in execution. A personal liability arising out of the contract of the guardian is a liability of the minor’s estate only”.
(2) Covenants in Relation to Immovable Property:
The covenants of the guardian which relate to land, such as agreements for sale, are governed by the rule in Hanuman Prasad’s case.