Skip to content


Ram Prasad Singh and ors. Vs. Jagatamba Prasad Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All547
AppellantRam Prasad Singh and ors.
RespondentJagatamba Prasad Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....to sue as paupers.2. they are minor sons suing to set aside an alienation by their father of joint family property. the learned judge has found that there is a share which had not been transferred at the time when the suit was filed and that, therefore, they are possessed of sufficient means to enable them to pay the court-fee. this is a finding of fast which we must accept in revision. it is argued for the applicants that this share is useless to them because they could not raise money on it, as the privy council have held in the case of gharib-ullah v. khalak singh (1903) 25 all. 407, that no guardian can be appointed for a minor member of a joint family. if this argument is correct, then every minor member of a joint family, except in the rare case of his possessing separate.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is an application for revision of an order holding that the applicants were not entitled to sue as paupers.

2. They are minor sons suing to set aside an alienation by their father of joint family property. The learned Judge has found that there is a share which had not been transferred at the time when the suit was filed and that, therefore, they are possessed of sufficient means to enable them to pay the Court-fee. This is a finding of fast which we must accept in revision. It is argued for the applicants that this share is useless to them because they could not raise money on it, as the Privy Council have held in the case of Gharib-ullah v. Khalak Singh (1903) 25 All. 407, that no guardian can be appointed for a minor member of a joint family. If this argument is correct, then every minor member of a joint family, except in the rare case of his possessing separate property, must be ipso facto entitled to sue as pauper. We are not prepared to accept this result or to believe, until an attempt has been made, that it is impossible for the minors to obtain funds when it is found that they are possessed of sufficient property. The Privy Council had not before them the case in which there was a conflict of interest between the minor member and the head of the family and the former was engaged in litigation against the latter. In fact the defendants, through their vakil in this case, had actually offered to purchase a part of the plaintiff's share in case a guardian was duly appointed. We accordingly dismiss the application with costs on the higher scale.


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