Skip to content


Hanuman Singh Vs. Ram Lakhan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930All646
AppellantHanuman Singh
RespondentRam Lakhan and ors.
Excerpt:
- - we do not consider it necessary to decide at this stage whether the result of this would be that the whole of the award would fail as against all the parties to the suit or whether it would only be ineffective as against the minor......there is nothing to show that the minor's guardian ad litem had agreed to this reference, the award appears to be not prejudicial to the minor.2. it seems to us that the court below has taken an erroneous view of the situation. under b. 1, sch. 2, it was incumbent on the court to see that all persons interested in the suit had agreed to refer the matter to arbitration. when a guardian ad litem had been appointed for the minor, it was that guardian alone who could represent the minor in all proceedings in that suit and nobody else could represent him (0. 32. rule 5). the learned subordinate judge is, therefore, quite wrong in thinking that the award would bind the minor, although his guardian ad litem had not been consulted.3. it is, therefore, quite clear that the award, as one.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. This is an application in revision from an order filing the award and framing the decree in terms of it. This was a partition suit in which there were a number of defendants, including defendant 7, who was a minor. His father was dead, and his mother was appointed as guardian ad litem for the suit. It appears that his grandfather is also alive and is a party to the suit. Without any reference to the guardian ad litem of the minor the other parties referred their disputes to arbitration, and the minor's uncle professed to act as the guardian of the minor. On the reference having been made an award was delivered which has bean accepted by the Court on the ground that, although there is nothing to show that the minor's guardian ad litem had agreed to this reference, the award appears to be not prejudicial to the minor.

2. It seems to us that the Court below has taken an erroneous view of the situation. Under B. 1, Sch. 2, it was incumbent on the Court to see that all persons interested in the suit had agreed to refer the matter to arbitration. When a guardian ad litem had been appointed for the minor, it was that guardian alone who could represent the minor in all proceedings in that suit and nobody else could represent him (0. 32. Rule 5). The learned Subordinate Judge is, therefore, quite wrong in thinking that the award would bind the minor, although his guardian ad litem had not been consulted.

3. It is, therefore, quite clear that the award, as one having been delivered against the minor, cannot bind him. We do not consider it necessary to decide at this stage whether the result of this would be that the whole of the award would fail as against all the parties to the suit or whether it would only be ineffective as against the minor. Nor do we consider it necessary to decide at this stage whether the minor would not otherwise be bound, for instance, if it were held that he was duly represented by the managing member of his family. We accordingly allow this revision, set aside the order of the Court below and send the case back to the Court below for disposal according to law. The applicant shall have the costs of this revision from the plaintiffs-respondents.


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