KOSHY GEORGE Vs. SARA MARIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Plaintiff arises out of a suit for setting aside a compromise decree and for declaration of his rights in the plaint schedule properties. Two brothers Varied Chona and Varied Oommen, separated as per a partition deed, Ext. A, dated 6 -12 -1079. Plaint A and B schedule immovable properties and D schedule mortgage right were set apart to the share of Varied Chona. On his death they devolved on his son Chona Varied who died in 1098 leaving his widow Mariyamma, their sons having pre -deceased the father. He left behind the plaint schedule properties, C schedule item being an amount due from a chitty. Chona Varied had a sister Sosamma, the mother of the Plaintiff. On 5 -2 -1101 Mariamma executed a deed covering her husband's properties (Ext I).releasing her rights in favour of Varied Oommen, her husband's father's "brother.

(2.) EXT . M is the copy of the judgment, in Order 46 yr 1116 and Ext. N the compromise decrement only states that the suit was decreed rrns of the compromise between the parties, contended on behalf of the Appellant is that the sort did not properly apply its mind to the question whether the compromise was in the.' interests of the minor, that its terms were highly prejudicial to him and that the guardian acted without bona fides and hence the decree is to be set aside. The relevant provision in the Indian Code of Civil Procedure is contained in Order 32, Rule 7, being similar to the provision in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the instant case. It is as follows:

(3.) When such was the position if the guardian considered that it was beneficial to the minor if the matter was compromised by the minor getting B schedule properties clear of any debt while leaving the rest of the assets to Varied Oommen and those claiming under him it is not possible to hold that there was want of bona fides or prejudice to the minor. The value of properties set apart to the parties as shown by the commissioner whose report is Ext. Z also does not support the case that there was prejudice. The guardian who entered into the compromise, namely, the 4th Defendant is Plaintiffs own father, examined as D. W. 4. Nothing, has been brought out to show why he should act in a way prejudicial to his son's interest. As long as it is not, shown that he got any secret gain by such a Cora promise the argument that because he married a.,1 second time he had no interest in the minor is of ' no force. Thus nothing has been brought out to, show that the lower court's finding that the compromise was in the interests of the present Plaintiff who was then a minor is in any way erroneous. So there is no reason to interfere with the lower court's finding.