v YAVASTHA-DARPANA. 57f observes that, because a guardian does not hold in his own right, he is not at liberty to pay the debts of his ward's ancestor by means of the property he holds, and that tho minor must cease to be a minor before he can be liable. But the court held neither the minor nor his guardian liable, but the property left by the debtor, declaring—“ that, according to the invariable practice of the courts, no plea of minority could be listened to, or any other doctrine recogmised than that the estate of a II indu in Bengal becomes liable at his death for the satisfaction of his just debts." By this if the court meant that no plea of minority could be listened to cven where a minor is left helpless without a guardian, and that the estate left by a deceased debtor must be held liable to satisfy his debts even in a suit by the creditor against such estate, without any defence on behalf of the minor as to the justness or otherwise of the demand, then, indeed, there is hardship and want of equity in the rule: a rule not at all supported by the Regulations which the court was bound to follow ; and which in such cases enjoins that the plea of minority must be listened to. But where a minor has a regularly appointed guardian for taking care of his estate and managing his law assairs, there the minor should not of course be taken in the light of a helpless one ; inasmuch as a minor can institute or defend suits through his guardian or proceim amy.* and there and then the decision or rule in question can apply without complaint of severity or illegality . 552. A kinsman or next friend may institute and defend suits for a minor. Vyavasthā Kinsmen may institute or defend suits for women, minors, idiots, and sick men ; servants, Authority appointed, may do the same.† VYA sa cited in hyavaha ratatwa. p. 7. 253 A guardian must render an account regarding the property he was in charge vyayastha. of, is responsible for his acts, and removable for abuse of his trust.] Legal opinions delivered in, and admitted by, the several courts of judicature, and eramined and approred of by Sir William Macnaghten. Q. A widow borrowed some money to defray the necessary expenscs of her minor son, and executed a bond in the name of her son (with her own signature) to the creditor for the debt. In this case, according to law, is the bond valid and binding on the son 2
- Colebrooke's opinion, apud Strange's Himdu I.aw, vol. 11. p. 200.
+ Upon this the commentators have observed that whether delegated or not, a well wisher of persons so incapacitated may plead on their parts. See Strange's H. L. vol. II. p. 209.
- Vide Strange's Hindu Law, vol. I, p. 104.
