Skip to content


Manohar Lal Vs. Jadunath Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)8BOMLR489
AppellantManohar Lal
RespondentJadunath Singh
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act. xlv of 1882), section 462-minor-guardian-next friend-compromise of a suit-leave of the court-practice.; the exigencies of section 462 of the civil procedure code 1882, can only be complied with when there is evidence that the attention of the court was directly called to the fact that a minor was a party to the compromise, and when it is shown, by an order on petition, or in some way not open to doubt, that the leave of the court was obtained. - .....reference to the terms of the decree pronounced by the court of the judicial commissioner on the minor's appeal to that court. it appears to their lordships that the terms of that decree are far too wide. the decree orders that the compromises and decrees in the foreclosure suit (which were in question in this suit) be set aside 'in their entirety,' and goes on to declare that the result would be that those suits would ' have to be decided afresh.' their lordships think (and indeed the learned counsel on both sides agree) that it will be quite sufficient if there is a declaration that the compromises and decrees are not binding upon the minor, and that he is remitted to his original rights.3. their lordships will therefore humbly advise his majesty that the decree in the minor's appeal.....
Judgment:

Macnaghten, J.

1.The Code of Civil Procedure (Section 462) provides that:-'No next friend or guardian for the suit shall without the leave of the Court, enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor with reference to the suit in which he acts as next friend or guardian.' It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the exigencies of that provision had been complied with in this case, inasmuch as it appeared that the minor (the first respondent), who was a party to the compromises in question, was described in the title of the suit as a minor suing 'under the guardianship of his mother,' and the terms of the compromises were, of course, before the Court. In the opinion of their Lordships that is not sufficient. There ought to be evidence that the attention of the Court was directly called to the fact that a minor was a party to the compromises, and it ought to be shown, by an order on Petition, or in some way not open to doubt, that the leave of the Court was obtained. This was the principal question argued before their Lordships, and on it the appellant fails.

2. The other question had reference to the terms of the Decree pronounced by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner on the minor's appeal to that Court. It appears to their Lordships that the terms of that Decree are far too wide. The Decree orders that the compromises and decrees in the foreclosure suit (which were in question in this suit) be set aside 'in their entirety,' and goes on to declare that the result would be that those suits would ' have to be decided afresh.' Their Lordships think (and indeed the learned Counsel on both sides agree) that it will be quite sufficient if there is a declaration that the compromises and decrees are not binding upon the minor, and that he is remitted to his original rights.

3. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the Decree in the minor's appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner should be varied in this respect, but otherwise affirmed, and that the Decree in the present appellant's appeal to that Court should be affirmed. With regard to the costs of the appeal, their Lordships think that the appellant must bear them.


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