Skip to content


Ram Ratun Singh Vs. Shew Nandan Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR29Cal126
AppellantRam Ratun Singh
RespondentShew Nandan Singh
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
minor, suit by - estoppel by conduct. - .....only point in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who is a minor suing through his guardian, is entitled to recover again from the defendant two sums of rs. 125 and rs. 99 which have been found by the lower appellate court to have been paid by the defendant to the minor himself and for which the defendant produced genuine receipts.2. the district judge has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover these sums again, and he has refused to give the plaintiff a decree for these amounts.3. we are of opinion that the judgment of the lower appellate court is correct, and that this appeal must be dismissed. it appears that the guardian of the minor lived at gya, whereas the minor was a resident of shahabad. the latter went about collecting rents for himself, and in may 1896 he put in.....
Judgment:

Rampini and Gupta, JJ.

1. The only point in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who is a minor suing through his guardian, is entitled to recover again from the defendant two sums of Rs. 125 and Rs. 99 which have been found by the Lower Appellate Court to have been paid by the defendant to the minor himself and for which the defendant produced genuine receipts.

2. The District Judge has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover these sums again, and he has refused to give the plaintiff a decree for these amounts.

3. We are of opinion that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is correct, and that this appeal must be dismissed. It appears that the guardian of the minor lived at Gya, whereas the minor was a resident of Shahabad. The latter went about collecting rents for himself, and in May 1896 he put in a petition to the Court alleging that he was over eighteen years of age, and asking to be allowed to manage his own affairs. We, think, therefore, that there is an estoppel by his conduct to prevent the minor from suing again even through his guardian, to recover j the sums which clearly were paid to him by the defendant. The guardian chose to neglect his duty, and the minor went about collecting rent and representing himself to the Court to be over eighteen years of age and competent to manage his own affairs.

4. This amounted to a virtual representation on his part that he was of full age and entitled to collect rent, and it would be very inequitable in these circumstances to allow the plaintiff to recover the above sums again.

5. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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