1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover Rs. 125 by way of principal and Rs. 9-10-0 by way of interest. The money was raised by defendant 2, who was a minor at the time. Defendant 2 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff for the sale of certain land belonging to him. Defendant 1, major brother of defendant 2, negotiated the contract for the sale of the land, which was embodied in the terms of the deed dated 25th May, 1915. The money was raised to provide for the marriage expenses of defendant 2. Defendant 2, within a fortnight after raising and receiving the money, married and applied the money received from the plaintiff in discharge of his marriage expenses. These facts have/been found by the learned Munsif, who granted the plaintiff a decree for the full measure of his claim. The lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the learned Munsif and held that the contract for the sale of the land was absolutely void by reason of the fact that defendant 2 was a minor and incapable of contracting as such; and that Section 68 of the Contract Act did not apply to the facts of this case. He accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
2. The first point taken before us is that no second appeal lies, inasmuch as the suit was one cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the claim being under Rs. 500 in value no second appeal lies. After a careful consideration of this question we hold that no second appeal lies; but we find that the appellants have also Jiled an application by way of revision under Section 115 of the CPC, which has been ordered to be heard with this appeal. We think that such an application is competent, and we shall deal with the matter as an application for revision under the Code. We think that the learned Judge was wrong in his interpretation of Section 68 of the Contract Act. On the facts as found in this case, no doubt the contract to sell the land in accordance with the sale-deed, executed by defendant 2 on 25th May, 1915, is void on the ground that the minor was incapable of entering into a contract to sell the interest he possessed in certain immovable property. But Section 68 of the Contract Act, provides that if a person incapable of entering into a contract is supplied by another person with necessaries suited to his condition of life, the person who furnishes such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person. In the present case defendant 2 did receive money from the plaintiff for the purposes of discharging his marriage expenses, which constituted a necessity or legal debt suited to his status and condition of life.
3. We are of opinion therefore that although defendant 2 was a minor at the time that he received the money from the plaintiff, nevertheless he is liable to have his property charged with the liability of reimbursing the plaintiff the money which the plaintiff advanced. There is ample authority in support of this principle of law. In the case of Vaikuntam Ammangar v. Kallipiran Ayyangar(1) it has heen held that the raising of money by a Brahmin widow for the marriage of her daughter was a necessity within the meaning of this section. Accordingly we shall declare that the property of defendant 2 comprising a 4-pie share out of 16-annas of Mauza Nawadih, Thana Latehar, Pargana and District Palamau, or such other property as the defendant 2 may be entitled to, is liable to reimburse and discharge the plaintiff's claim in this action.
4. The judgments and decrees of the two lower Courts are set aside and in lieu thereof it is ordered that a decree be drawn up in accordance with the declaration made by us. The application is accordingly allowed.
V.S/R.K
5. Application allowed.