VED PRAKASH Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by a minor plaintiff has been filed by his mother as the next friend under the following circumstances:-

(2.) THE land in dispute had been sold by one Shrimati Sohna, widow of Khubi, by registered sale deed dated 23-5-1957 in favour of the minor appellant. Ram kishan defendant-respondent had filed a suit to pre-empt that sale. He had shown the appellant's father as the guardian ad litem and had impleaded him as the defendant-vendee in that case. Ram Kishan had claimed a superior right to step in as vendee on the ground of his being a collateral of Khubi, the deceased husband of the vendor.

(3.) UNDER a compromise, the appellant's father suffered a decree to be passed against the minor defendant-vendee (namely the present appellant ). The Court's permission was not taken as required by of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil procedure. According to sub-rule (2) ibid, the compromise entered into without the leave of the Court is voidable against all parties other than the minor. The Court had not applied its mind in that pre-emption suit as to how far the compromise entered into on behalf of the appellant by his father was for or against the interests or benefit of the minor against whom the decree was being passed on the concession of his guardian-ad-litem. The present suit has been filed by the minor to avoid that compromise decree by which he has been deprived of the land in dispute. The effect of non-compliance with the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 7 (1) of the Code has been discussed by the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in kaushalya Devi v. Baijnath, AIR 1961 SC 790.