Skip to content


Bhagelu Vs. Musammat Dharma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in75Ind.Cas.898
AppellantBhagelu
RespondentMusammat Dharma and ors.
Cases ReferredBawan Das v. Bishnath A.W.N.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxxii, rule 4(2) - guardian adlitem--appointment, how long continues--appeal, whether can be filed by any other person. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]......dharma was a minor, her uncle sampat was made guardian ad litim. the trial court decreed the suit. an appeal was filed in the lower appellate court on behalf of the minor by the minor's father mahbodh. there had been no order removing sampat from guardianship. the lower appellate court commented on the fact that, although sampat had been appointed guardian ad litem in the lower court, the appeal had been filed through manbouh. in the resule, the court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.2. on appeal before us it has been urged that there was no valid appeal before the lower appellate court and our attention was called to the recent decision of a bench of this court in shambhu v. kanhaya 75 ind. cas. 457 : 44 a. 619 : 20 a.l.j. 599 : (1922) a.l.r. (a.) 332, which is exactly in.....
Judgment:

1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:--Bhagelu brought a suit against Musammat Dharma for restitution of conjugal rights and, as Musammat, Dharma was a minor, her uncle Sampat was made guardian ad litim. The Trial Court decreed the suit. An appeal was filed in the lower Appellate Court on behalf of the minor by the minor's father Mahbodh. There had been no order removing Sampat from guardianship. The lower Appellate Court commented on the fact that, although Sampat had been appointed guardian ad litem in the lower Court, the appeal had been filed through Manbouh. In the resule, the court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

2. On appeal before us it has been urged that there was no valid appeal before the lower Appellate Court and our attention was called to the recent decision of a Bench of this Court in Shambhu v. Kanhaya 75 Ind. Cas. 457 : 44 A. 619 : 20 A.L.J. 599 : (1922) A.L.R. (A.) 332, which is exactly in point. It was there held that, where a guardian ad litem to a minor defendant has once been appointed, such appointment continues for the whole of the lis or until it is revoked by Court, and the guardian so appointed is the only person who can file an appeal on behalf of the minor. That decision follows several other decisions of this Court which are mentioned in the course of the judgment and also a Madras case. It seems to us that we are bound to follow this course of decisions. It may be that the defendant has a remedy open to him as suggested in the case of Bawan Das v. Bishnath A.W.N. (1899) 203. We allow the appeal, following the decisions of this Court, and setting aside the decree of the Court below restore that of the First Court. We make no order as to costs.


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