Skip to content


Kaliammal Vs. G.N. Ramaswami Goundar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 1378 of 1955
Judge
Reported inAIR1957Mad629
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17 - Order 32, Rule 12
AppellantKaliammal
RespondentG.N. Ramaswami Goundar
Appellant AdvocateS. Sitaraman and ;S. Rajaraman, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateS.A. Rangocnari, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....suit on the ground of gross negligence and to get any decree passed in such a suit set aside on proof of such negligence.4. a bench of this court, to which i too wss a party, has recently held that such right of a minor extends even to execution proceedings and appeals, and indeed even to the negligence of a guardian in not filing on appeal where one was obviously called for. so it is clear that a minor plaintiff, when he attains majority, must be given an opportunity of making even drastic amendments to a plaint according to what he considers ought to have been the correct and relevant allegations, for, at the moment when he attains majority, he tekes the responsibility for his actions.5. at that moment, naturally, he is given such liberty. on that ground i uphold the lower court's.....
Judgment:

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. This is a petition by one Kalk-ammal, the defendant in O. S. No. 395 of 1952 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in I. A. No. 515 of 1955 allowing the second plaintiff, the respondent herein, to amend the plaint drastically on attaining majority, on the ground that the amendments involved only questions of law, and were, in his opinion, fit to be allowed.

2. I have perused the entire records arid heard the learned counsel on both sides. Mr. Raja-raman. learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that even questions of law not raised in the original plaint should not be allowed to be raised by way of amendment, if they would totally change the cause of action, or subvert the frame of the original plaint, or set up contentions which were already known to the parties at the time of filing the original plaint but were not set up then.

3. I agree generally with these propositions. But in this case, there is the fact that the second plaintiff was a minor at the time of the filing of the original plaint find was represented by a guardian. Under our law, there is a right in a minor to attack the guardian's acts in .conducting a suit on the ground of gross negligence and to get any decree passed in such a suit set aside on proof of such negligence.

4. A Bench of this Court, to Which I too wss a party, has recently held that such right of a minor extends even to execution proceedings and appeals, and indeed even to the negligence of a guardian in not filing on appeal where one was obviously called for. So it is clear that a minor plaintiff, when he attains majority, must be given an opportunity of making even drastic amendments to a plaint according to what he considers ought to have been the correct and relevant allegations, for, at the moment when he attains majority, he tekes the responsibility for his actions.

5. At that moment, naturally, he is given such liberty. On that ground I uphold the lower Court's order allowing the amendment, and dismiss this civil revision petition, but, in the circumstances, without costs.


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