Ramnadhan Sivayya and Others vs Udatha Atchayya and Others

Bakewell, J.—The decree is in favour of two minors, who sued by their next friend, and two majors, who are undivided members of the

same family as the minors. If the obligation of the debtor had not been merged in the decree, the managing member could have given the debtor a

discharge without the concurrence of the minors and time would have run against them all. I fail to see how the fact that the contract between the

parties has been embodied in a decree can affect the authority of the manager of the family to deal with the decree, which is part of the family

property, and I respectfully agree with the reasoning of the learned Judges in the case reported in Duraisawmi Sastrigal v. Venkatarama 21 M.L.J.

1088; (1911) 2 M.W.N. 420; 10 M.L.T. 370; 12 Ind. Cas. 503. Section 7 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908) treats a suit by joint creditors on

the same footing as an application by joint decree-holders and contemplates that one joint creditor of either description may be empowered to give

a discharge without the concurrence of the others; that power could not be given by a minor after the decree in his favour and before he attains his

majority, so that the section contemplates an authority apart from and anterior to the decree. The petition is dismissed with costs.