DAULAT RAM Vs. SURINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent and is directed against the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court reversing, on appeal, the decision of the lower appellate Court deciding the appeal on compromise.

(2.) A consent decree was passed on the 24th December, 1962 in the lower appellate Court, Surinder Kumar was a party to that appeal. He was a minor at the time when the appeal directed against the decree in that suit was compromised. In that suit, he was represented by a guardian. He attained majority on 2nd December, 1961 as has been found by the District Judge in his report dated the 18th November, 1963. This report was called by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 13th September, 1963 It is, therefore, clear that on the date the appeal was compromised, Surinder Kumar was not a minor.

(3.) THE short question that fell for determination before the learned Single Judge was whether a guardian of a minor could enter into a compromise with the leave of the Court when, at the time, the compromise is entered into, the minor had attained majority and had ceased to be a minor. The learned Single Judge has held that in such circumstances, the quondam guardian cannot enter into a valid compromise and even if it is entered into, it is not binding on the minor and the minor can avoid it in appropriate proceedings The learned Single Judge has, in this connection, based his decision on a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Sanyasi v. Yerran Naidu, AIR 1928 Mad 294 and has preferred this decision to a decision of the Lahore High Court in Ghulam Nabi v. Basheshar Mal, AIR 1922 Lah 407, which had taken a contrary view. There is also a Division Bench decision of the Mysore High Court reported as Nanjiah v Maregowda, AIR 1952 Mys 134. where precisely the same question fell for determination. The Mysore Court has considered both the Lahore and the Madras decisions and has preferred to follow the Madras decision. It will be proper, therefore, to set out the relevant observations of the Mysore Court on this matter: