ANNEPU VYKUNTA RAO Vs. ANNEPU VASUDEVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court on 22. 7. 1998 made the following order :

(2.) SMT. A. B. Lalitha representing sri D. Ramalingaswamy, the Counsel for the appellants had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and would point out that the well-considered findings recorded by the Court of first instance were reversed by the appellate court without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The learned Counsel also would point out that from the findings recorded by the trial Court, it is clear that the maternal uncle had not acted with due diligence and as a next friend of minors the said maternal uncle acted with gross negligence and in fact no properties had been given to these minors at the relevant point of time and the alleged prior partition also had not been referred to in the compromise and when that being so the appellate Court totally erred in recording the findings contra to the findings, which had been recorded by the Court of first instance. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions in this regard.

(3.) PER contra, Sri Ram Mohan had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the appellate Court and in the light of the points for consideration decided by the appellate Court the learned counsel would maintain that in fact there was prior partition and at the relevant point of the time the father was alive and bona fide compromise was entered into and the mere fact that the prior partition was not referred to in the compromise may not seriously alter the situation especially in the light of the fact that prior leave of the Court had been obtained and the Court on application of mind permitted the parties to effect compromise that too in the interest of the minors then and when that being so unless there are compelling reasons and proof relating to the gross negligence on the part of the next friend or guardian in conducting the litigation the compromise decree cannot be avoided. The counsel would also maintain that even otherwise the suit is barred by limitation and in any view of the matter in the light of the well considered findings recorded by the appellate Court no substantial questions of law as such would arise for consideration in this second appeal and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.