DOKKU BHUSHAYYA Vs. KATRAGADDA RAMAKRISHNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1929, one Bapiah filed a suit against the appellant, then a minor, his father and another person on a promissory note executed by the two last mentioned persons. The appellant was represented in that suit by his maternal grandfather as his guardian ad litem. A decree was passed in that suit. The decree-holder put the decree in execution and obtained an order for the sale of certain properties in which the appellant was interested. The properties were sold in due course in favour, it is said, of a clerk of the decreeholder. Thereafter, the appellant's guardian ad litem made an application under Or. 21 R. 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the sale. Later, however, the guardian ad litem came to a settlement with the decree-holder and the auction purchaser that the guardian ad litem would give up the contention regarding the invalidity of the sale and withdraw the petition to set it aside and also give up possession of the properties sold to the auction purchaser and the decree-holder and the auction purchaser in their turn would give up their claim for costs of the petition. In pursuance of this agreement the petition was withdrawn and dismissed by order made on August 12, 1932.

(2.) After attaining majority, the appellant filed a suit in 1944 to set aside the order of August 12, 1932, and for a re-hearing of the petition which was dismissed by the order of that date. It is from this suit that the present appeal arises. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal the decision of the trial Court was reversed by the High Court at Madras and the suit was ordered to be dismissed. There is no disputed that the suit was competent and within time.

(3.) The only question in this appeal is whether the order of August 12, 1932, is voidable under Or. 32 R. 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, at the instance of the appellant. That rule forbids the guardian for the suit to "enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor with reference to the suit" without the leave of the court and provides that any such agreement or compromise entered into without the leave of the court shall be voidable against all parties, other than minor.