JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant on foot of a promissory note. The defendant pleaded that he was a minor at the time of the making of the note. It has been found by both the courts below that he was in fact a minor at the date of the note. It has also been found by the court below that the defendant fraudulently misrepresented to the plaintiff that he was major and thereby induced the plaintiff to lend money. The short question is, whether on these findings the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for the amount of the promissory note and interest. The courts below have held that he was so entitled. It can no longer be disputed, having regard to the ruling of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Mohori Bibi v. Dharmo Das Ghose,I.L.R., 30 Cal., 539, that a contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio. It follows, there fore, that neither section 64 nor section 65 of the Indian Contract Act applied. Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act only applies where the court is exercising its jurisdiction to cancel an instrument. In our opinion the question simply amounts to this, namely, is the defendant estopped from pleading his infancy by reason of the fact that he was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation. In our opinion he is not. We are aware of no case in which an infant has ever been held liable to pay the amount of a promissory note or bill of exchange when a suit has been brought by the holder of that instrument against the minor on the basis thereof. It is unnecessary for us to consider the case of Jngarnath Singh v. Lalta Prasad,I.L.R., 31 All., 21. That was a case in which the plaintiff sued to recover possession of property which he had lost as a consequence of a mortgage executed when he was a minor. One learned Judge held that the minor had been guilty of misrepresentation and considered that he was liable to make good certain advances which had actually been received. 2. The other Judge held on the facts that there had been no misrepresentation. One learned Judge held that the minor had been guilty of misrepresentation and considered that he was liable to make good certain advances which had actually been received. 2. The other Judge held on the facts that there had been no misrepresentation. The facts of that case differ from those of the present case on an essential point, namely, that in that case the minor had come into court seeking equity, while in the present case the plaintiff sued on foot of a promissory note made by a minor. We were referred to the case of Sarat Chand Mitter v. Mohini Bibi,I.L.R., 25 Cal. 371. It is only necessary to say that that decision was given prior to the decision of the Privy Council in Mohori Bibi v. Dharmo Das Ghose, referred to above. We allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of both the courts below, and dismiss the plaintiffs' suit, but, having regard to the findings of facts, without costs in any court.