PETHA PADAYACHI Vs. RAMALINGA PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that the compromise decree in O. S. 14 of 1958 on the file of the Sub-Court cuddalore, is invalid and not binding on him, and for recovery of possession of the suit properties, 2. 48 acres of nanja, with past and future mesne profits from the defendants. His case was that he was a minor represented by his mother as guardian in the said suit and that by her gross negligence she had compromised the suit agreeing to give the said extent of 2. 48 acres to the defendant.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the suit contending that the mother of the plaintiff acting as his guardian entered into a compromise bona fide and in the interests of the plaintiff, that she was not grossly negligent in entering into the compromise and that, therefore, the compromise decree cannot be set aside. He also contended that in any event, the plaintiff cannot recover possession of the suit properties even if the compromise decree is set aside.

(3.) THE trial Court held that the compromise decree is not null and void and that it is binding on the plaintiff. In that view it dismissed on suit. The lower appellate court, however, came to the contrary conclusion and held that the compromise decree is vitiated by gross negligence on the part of the guardian and that, therefore, the compromise decree is not binding on the plaintiff. It also directed delivery on possession of the suit extent overlooking the fact the result of the compromise decree being set aside is that the suit O. S. 14 of 1958 will stand restored and that the plaintiff will not be entitled to recover possession of the suit properties in this suit. In this second appeal the defendant questions the correctness of the view taken by the lower appellate court.