Skip to content


Abdur Rashid Vs. Sheikh Khandkar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in68Ind.Cas.997
AppellantAbdur Rashid
RespondentSheikh Khandkar and ors.
Cases ReferredBihu Halwai v. Mohesh Halwai C.L.J.
Excerpt:
guardians and wards act (viii of 1890), section 29 - civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xxxii, rule 7--zease by guardian in terms of compromise entered into with leave of cowl--consent of collector, if necessary. - .....relates to a rent suit which was partially decreed in the court below. at the hearing of the appeal the lower appellate court agreed in most of its findings with the first court, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the lease was granted by one kissori on behalf of an infant without any authority in that behalf, because he did not obtain the consent of the collector in accordance with the provisions of section 29 of the guardians and wards alt. such consent is not in fact necessary, because the lease was made in accordance with a compromise which had been entered into with the sanction of the court whose duty it was particularly to see that the compromise including the execution of the lease, was for the benefit of the infant. this is according to the proper construction of.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal relates to a rent suit which was partially decreed in the Court below. At the hearing of the appeal the lower Appellate Court agreed in most of its findings with the First Court, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the lease was granted by one Kissori on behalf of an infant without any authority in that behalf, because he did not obtain the consent of the Collector in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Alt. such consent is not in fact necessary, because the lease was made in accordance with a compromise which had been entered into with the sanction of the Court whose duty it was particularly to see that the compromise including the execution of the lease, was for the benefit of the infant. This is according to the proper construction of the section in question and Order XXXII, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code; it is in accordance with the law laid down in the case of Bihu Halwai v. Mohesh Halwai C.L.J. 266, As the lower Appellate Court has acted on this mistaken view of the law, but has otherwise agreed in the finding of the first Court, we allow the appeal, get aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore those of the Go art of first instance. The present appellant is entitled to his costs in the lower Appellate Court and to the costs of this Court less the hearing fee.


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