Skip to content


Bhiwa Jotiba Vs. Devchand Bechar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 834 of 1908
Judge
Reported in(1911)13BOMLR280
AppellantBhiwa Jotiba
RespondentDevchand Bechar
Excerpt:
.....462-- compromise of suit--court, sanction of--minor party--absence of sanction--compromise not binding on minor.;where a compromise is entered into by parties to a suit in which a minor is interested, it is not binding on the minor unless leave of the court is obtained under section 462 of the civil procedure code, 1882. and where the minor comes forward to set aside the compromise, the court has no power to uphold it on the ground that it is for the benefit of minor or that the minor has derived benefit from it. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p...........1882). that being the case, according to the provisions of that section, the compromise could not bind the minor and was avoidable. the court under circumstances such as those in the present suit, where the minor comes forward to set aside the compromise, has no power to uphold it on the ground that it was for the benefit of the minor or that the minor had derived benefit from it. the legislature has said in so many words that a compromise entered into by the parties to a suit, in which minors are interested, shall not bind the minor unless leave was obtained. see the observations of the privy council in manohar lal v. jadu nath singh (1906) l.r. 33 indap 128 and virupakshappa v. skidappa and basappa ilr (1901) 26 bom. 109. the compromise must be set aside as not binding the plaintiff......
Judgment:

N.G. Chandavarkar, J.

1. The lower appellate Court has held that leave of the Court was not obtained under Section 462 of the old Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882). That being the case, according to the provisions of that section, the compromise could not bind the minor and was avoidable. The Court under circumstances such as those in the present suit, where the minor comes forward to set aside the compromise, has no power to uphold it on the ground that it was for the benefit of the minor or that the minor had derived benefit from it. The legislature has said in so many words that a compromise entered into by the parties to a suit, in which minors are interested, shall not bind the minor unless leave was obtained. See the observations of the Privy Council in Manohar Lal v. Jadu Nath Singh (1906) L.R. 33 IndAp 128 and Virupakshappa v. Skidappa and Basappa ILR (1901) 26 Bom. 109. The compromise must be set aside as not binding the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court having disposed of the case on a preliminary point, we must reverse the decree and remand the appeal for a fresh hearing on the merits. Costs of this appeal on the respondent Other costs to be costs in the appeal in the lower Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //