Skip to content


Chellakani Lakshmi Venkata Bhusura Ram Rao Vs. Yandapalle Venkataraju and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926Mad1146; 97Ind.Cas.703
AppellantChellakani Lakshmi Venkata Bhusura Ram Rao
RespondentYandapalle Venkataraju and ors.
Cases ReferredSellappa Goundan v. Masa Naiken A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....held in execution of a mortgage-decree obtained against him and his father, who had executed the suit mortgage. it is now contended that in accordance with the law laid down in sellappa goundan v. masa naiken a.i.r. 1924 mad. 297 that the minor who was represented in the suit by his father was not properly represented, as the father's interest was adverse to that of his son and consequently that the decree passed in the suit and subsequent proceeding thereon are all void.2. the head note to the case relied on certainly seems to support this proposition as a proposition of law, namely, that the interest of a father is adverse to that of the minor sons. whether this is not somewhat too broadly stated it is unnecessary to consider now, because the present case can be differentiated by the.....
Judgment:

1. The appellant, a minor applied through his mother and guardian to set aside certain sales held in execution of a mortgage-decree obtained against him and his father, who had executed the suit mortgage. It is now contended that in accordance with the law laid down in Sellappa Goundan v. Masa Naiken A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 297 that the minor who was represented in the suit by his father was not properly represented, as the father's interest was adverse to that of his son and consequently that the decree passed in the suit and subsequent proceeding thereon are all void.

2. The head note to the case relied on certainly seems to support this proposition as a proposition of law, namely, that the interest of a father is adverse to that of the minor sons. Whether this is not somewhat too broadly stated it is unnecessary to consider now, because the present case can be differentiated by the fact that when the mortgage in this suit was executed the appellant was not born. When he was born the family property had already been encumbered and he only became entitled to an interest in that property as it was on that date. There can, therefore, be no question of the father's interest being adverse to that of the son. If the mortgage is not valid it was equally to the interest of the father to set it aside as to the interest of the son and consequently, there is no reason for holding in this case that the interest of the father was adverse.

3. The Subordinate Judge's order refusing the application is, therefore, right and this appeal must be dismissed with costs of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. No other point has been argued.


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