Skip to content


Sheorania Vs. Bharat Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR20All90
AppellantSheorania
RespondentBharat Singh
Excerpt:
minor - suit on behalf of a person alleged to be, but not in fact, a minor--procedure on discovery that the plaintiff was of full age at the commencement of the suit. - knox and burkitt, jj.1. the suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted on a plaint signed and verified by one lachmi narain, calling himself the next friend of musammat sheorania, whom he described to be a minor. sheorania was his daughter, and the suit was instituted on the 23rd of april 1894. on the 24th of september 1894, a decree was given upon this plaint in favour of the plaintiff. the defendant presented an appeal, and, when the next friend got notice of the appeal, sheoradia herself came forward and applied to the court to be allowed to carry on the suit as a major. from the affidavit which she filed, and from the affidavit which her father lachmi narain filed, it is proved beyond doubt that musammat sheorania had attained her majority some time before the.....
Judgment:

Knox and Burkitt, JJ.

1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises was instituted on a plaint signed and verified by one Lachmi Narain, calling himself the next friend of Musammat Sheorania, whom he described to be a minor. Sheorania was his daughter, and the suit was instituted on the 23rd of April 1894. On the 24th of September 1894, a decree was given upon this plaint in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant presented an appeal, and, when the next friend got notice of the appeal, Sheoradia herself came forward and applied to the Court to be allowed to carry on the suit as a major. From the affidavit which she filed, and from the affidavit which her father Lachmi Narain filed, it is proved beyond doubt that Musammat Sheorania had attained her majority some time before the institution of the suit in April 1894. Upon this the defendant, who was appellant in the Court below, represented to the Judge that the suit should be dismissed, and it was dismissed.

2. It is now contended in appeal to this Court that the Judge should not have dismissed the suit, but should have allowed the plaint to be amended and the suit to be carried on by Musammat Sheorania, or, if amendment could not be allowed, the phrase 'Lachmi Narain as next friend' might be treated as mere surplusage. In support of this the learned Counsel for the appellant cited the case of Taqui Jan v. Obaid-ulla I.L.R. 21 Cal. 866. We find ourselves unable to follow the procedure adopted in that case. We have before us what is not a plaint by Musammat Sheorania, inasmuch as it is neither signed nor verified by her, and she, according to both her own statement and that of Lachmi Narain, is the only person, if any, entitled to sue as plaintiff. The person who signed and verified the plaint is Lachmi Narain, a person not duly authorized by Sheorania in that behalf. Musammat Sheorania was of full age when the plaint was filed, and Lachmi Narain therefore had no standing whatever in the case. The vakalatnamahs in the case are also signed by Lachmi Narain, and, so far as the record shows, the whole proceedings were carried on by Lachmi Narain, a man who had no interest whatever in the property in dispute and had no cause of action against the defendant. What purports to be a plaint by Musammat Sheorania is not a plaint by Musammat Sheorania, and cannot therefore be amended by her. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs in all Courts, which will be borne throughout by Lachmi Narain, the person who signed and verified the plaint on the record.


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