GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. SUKHVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, Jullundur, reversing on appeal the decision of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) JOGINDER Singh sold 69 Kanals 8 Marlas of land to Jagdish Singh and others for Rs. 5000/ -. Sukhvinder Singh minor son of the vendor filed a suit for pre-emption through his guardian Narinder Singh, his uncle. During the pendency of the suit on 16th January, 1965, the guardian made an application that they had settled the dispute and the minor will receive a sum of Rs. 2000/- and give up his claim in the suit. The principal ground stated in the application for compromise was that the minor was not in a position to fork out the pre-emption money. The trial Court upon the application of the quardian went into the matter under O. 32, R. 7, Code of Civil Procedure, and came to the conclusion that the compromise was for the benefit of the minor and accordingly granted the sanction. The compromise was then given effect to. A sum of Rs. 2000/- was paid by the vendees for payment to the minor.

(3.) THE present suit has been filed by the minor through his mother as guardian nearly two months after the compromise, that is, on 5th March, 1965, for a declaration that the compromise decree was not for his benefit and was illegal. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the compromise decree was binding on the minor because the compromise had been entered into with the leave of the Court and was for his benefit. The appeal against this decision was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge who took the view that it was wrongly stated in the application that the minor was not possessed of sufficient means to pay the pre-emption money and that Narinder Singh had been paid Rs. 2000/- to deposit in Court and he has not deposited that amount. In fact, out of this Rs. 2000/-, he gave Rs. 1000/- to the mother without any receipt. He also withdrew the one-fifth amount deposited in Court and also did not give that amount to her. On these facts, the lower appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and granted the declaration prayed. He also directed the original Court which had dismissed the pre-emption suit to proceed with it. The vendees are dissatisfied with this decision and have come up in second appeal to this Court.