RAMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. RAM CHANDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that has been referred to us for decision is :

(2.) The reference was made by reason of the fact that there was a difference of opinion on the point between the Oudh Chief Court and the Allahabad High Court before its amalgamation. In Mohammad Baksh v. Allah Din, 17 Luck. 1: (A. I. R. (29) 1942 Oudh 33) a Bench of the Oudh Chief Court -- Bennett and Madeley JJ. -- had held that such a decree was merely voidable at the option of the minor; while in Dwarika Halwai v. Sitla Prasad, I. L. R. (1940) ALL. 344; (A.I.R. (27) 1940 ALI. 256), Bennet and Verma JJ. had held that the decree was null and void. Both. the decisions were, however, said to be based on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Mt. Siraj Fatma v. Mahmud Ali, 54 ALL. 646 : (A. I. R. (19) 1932 ALL. 293 F. B.).

(3.) The point for consideration before the Full Bench in Mt. Siraj Fatma, v. Mahmud Ali, (54 ALL. 646 : A. I. R. (19) 1932 ALL. 293 F. B.) was whether a minor had a right to institute a suit in the civil Court to avoid a decree or order passed by a competent Court against him on the ground of negligence of his guardian. The question whether such a decree was void or voidable did not directly arise. The Full Bench was of the opinion that a minor had a right to file a suit in the civil Court to avoid such a decree. Certain observations in the judgment of Sulaiman J. were relied upon by Bennet and Verma 33., while certain other observations In the same judgment were relied upon by Bennett and Madeley JJ. of Lucknow.