PRABHAKARI Vs. SHAMLAL GULABLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellate Prabhakarlal is the first defendant in the suit. The first respondent Shamlal is the plaintiff. Shamlal brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, against the first defendant and five others in the Court of the Civil Judge. Sr. Dn., Belgaum (suit No.14 of 1959). for setting aside the decree obtained by the first defendant in Spl.Suit No. 159 of 1940 of the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge. Belgaum and in FA. No.84 of 1943 of the High Court of Bombay on the ground that at the time when the previous suit was filed he and his brother Bhansilal, who were defendants 1 and 2 respectively in the previous suit, were minors and the decree had resulted from grosws neglience of the guardian and from fraud and collusion.

(2.) Thp learned trial Judge found that there was no gross negligence of the guardian. However, he was of the view that fraud was practised by the other defendants and one Babanna and Ramlal the genitive father of the first defendant on the Court as well as on the guardian. He also held that there was evidence of collusion between the defendants. Ramlal and Babanna and held that the decree in the previous suit was not binding on the plainliff and directed the Special Suit No.159 of 1940 to be re-opend and to be heard afresh. This appeal is filed by the 1st defendant, Prabhakarlal, against the said decree

(3.) In order to understand the dispute arising in this appeal, we think it necessary to set forth the relationship of the parties with reference to the pedigree in the plaint, which is not disputed