1. In this case a suit had been brought by a member of a Hindu family on behalf of himself and his minor son for partition against his co-parceners; but, before the suit was ripe for hearing, matters were compromised between the plaintiffs and defendants and an application was made by the defendants to have the compromise recorded in Court and a decree passed in its terms. The question necessarily arose before the Munsif as to whether the compromise was beneficial to the minor or not, for, before the compromise can be enforced, when a minor is involved in the matter, the sanction of the Court is necessary. In the meanwhile, an application was made by the minor's maternal grandfather to have the father removed from his place as next friend of the minor and himself substituted in that position. That petition was also heard by the Munsif along with the petition to record the compromise. Some other petitions were also filed, but it is not necessary to refer to them at present. The Munsif, after a careful and elaborate enquiry, considered that the compromise was beneficial to the minor and that there was no necessity to remove the minor's next friend, his father, and to substitute his grandfather in his place, and he directed that a decree be drawn up in terms of the compromise between the parties. It is against the rejection of that application of the maternal grandfather to be made the next friend of the minor in these proceedings that this Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. The argument that has been urged before me is that the minor's father was not a proper next friend of the minor as his interest was adverse to that of the minor in the matter of the enforcement of the compromise, and, therefore, he should not have, been allowed to continue as a next friend of the minor. This argument is put in a very ingenious way : first of all, it is said that this compromise amounted to a transfer of property because the compromise had been arrived at in a partition suit; that, it being a transfer, the interest of the father is opposed to that of the son as the property involved included both the father's and the son's shares; and finally that, as the father's interest was in conflict with that of the minor, he was not a proper next friend and therefore he should be removed. The fallacy of this argument is in supposing that the father has got any interest adverse to the minor in the suit. The father's interest and the minor's interest are exactly the same in the partition suit. If the minor was getting any property at all, the father will also get an equal share in that property himself. We may, therefore, take it that the father who is interested in securing his own share will be equally interested in securing the minor's share in the property. The argument, therefore, fails altogether that the father's interest is adverse to that of the minor.
3. The Munsif having found that the compromise itself was beneficial to the minor, a finding which I must accept in revision, there is no ground whatsoever for setting aside the minor's present next friend and introducing a new person in the shape of the maternal grandfather into the record. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
4. It may be observed that two preliminary objections were taken to the hearing of this petition, but I have not thought it necessary to consider those objections in the view I have taken of the merits of the case.