Skip to content


Sheik Muhammad Maracayar Vs. Muhammad Ammal Minor by Guardian Muhammad Moideen Maracayar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in91Ind.Cas.521
AppellantSheik Muhammad Maracayar
RespondentMuhammad Ammal Minor by Guardian Muhammad Moideen Maracayar and ors.
Cases ReferredCourt Ranga Rao v. Rajagopala Raju
Excerpt:
civil procure code, (act v of 1908), order xxxii, rule 1 - partition suit--minor plaintiff--compromise between some of the parties to suit, whether for benefit of minor--sanction of court--party other than next friend or guardian, whether can apply for sanction. - .....to mention that the plaintiff's vakil' did not file in court a certificate stating that in, his opinion the compromise was beneficial to the minor. the next friend himself opposed the application made by the 1st defendant and stated to the court that it is not in the interests of the miner that the compromise should be sanctioned. the question that arises is: in these circumstances can the court on the application of the 1st defendant sanction the compromise? there is very little authority on this point. wilson v. birchall (1881) 16 ch. d. 41 cited before us does not deal with the question. the agreement in that case was not entered into by the guardian of the minor and the observations of jessel, m.e., are, therefore, inapplicable. there is a decision of a bench of this court ranga.....
Judgment:

1. A partition, suit was pending before the lower Court. All the parties to it excepting the 3rd defendant entered into a compromise. The plaintiff was a. minor and he was represented by & next friend. The next friend was also a party to the compromise. He, apparently' changed his mind and failed to apply to the Court under Order XXXII, Rule 7 of the C.P.C. for its sanction of the compromise entered into on behalf of the minor plaintiff. One of the defendants thereupon made the application. It is also necessary to mention that the plaintiff's Vakil' did not file in Court a certificate stating that in, his opinion the compromise was beneficial to the minor. The next friend himself opposed the application made by the 1st defendant and stated to the Court that it is not in the interests of the miner that the compromise should be sanctioned. The question that arises is: in these circumstances can the Court on the application of the 1st defendant sanction the compromise? There is very little authority on this point. Wilson v. Birchall (1881) 16 Ch. D. 41 cited before us does not deal with the question. The agreement in that case was not entered into by the guardian of the minor and the observations of Jessel, M.E., are, therefore, inapplicable. There is a decision of a Bench of this Court Ranga Rao v. Rajagopala Raju 8 Ind. Dec. 272, to the effect that the Court cannot sanction an agreement except on the application of the next friend of the guardian ad litem, of the minor. In the view we have taken of this case we refrain from expressing any opinion as to the correctness of the decision. We propose to deal with, this, appeal on the facts that are mentioned in the judgment of the lower Court. The learned Subordinate Judge says that in his opinion the compromise is not beneficial to the minor. He does not, of course, give say-reasons in that part of his judgment, feat later on shows that the suit before him was. a partition suit, that at least one party withheld his consent to the compromise and that it is open to that other party fro agitate the matter and claim a partition afresh and on a different basis. This obviously is not in the interests of the minor. For this reason we refuse to interfere with, the judgment of the lower Court.

2. On the whole we are satisfied that the decision is, correct. The appeal fails, and dismissed.

3. Having regard to the conduct of the plaintiff's, next friend we are not prepared to grant him any costs, of this appeal.


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