RATANLAL Vs. GAURILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a miscellaneous civil appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, Sikar, of the 8th of August 1951, by which a decree was granted on the basis of a compromise, for an amount of Rs. 1250/ -.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Jodh Raj and Ratanlal filed a suit against Gaurilal and Ramballabh for Rs. 5976/3/- in the court of the Civil Judge, Sikar, on the 24th of October 1954. After some time in course of the trial an application was filed by Jodhraj and Gaurilal on the 9th of May, 1951 in which it was stated that the suit had been compromised between the parties and that Rs. 1250/- had already been paid to Jodhraj in furtherance therefor and that an amount of Rs. 1250/- which remained to the paid shall be paid on the 1st of June 1952 by Gaurilal. A prayer was made that the suit be decided in the terms of the compromise. After some time Ratanlal disowned the compromise entered into by his father. THE learned Civil Judge held that Jodhraj was the father and the manager of the joint Hindu family of the plaintiffs and he could therefore enter into a compromise with the defendants and could give them a valid discharge, even without the consent of Ratanlal. A decree in terms of the compromise was therefore passed by him as stated above Ratanlal has come in appeal against the said judgment and decree of the court of the Civil Judge. His case is that even though Jodhraj was the father of the appellant he had no authority on his behalf to enter into a compromise with the defendants, and that the compromise which, had been entered into by him without the consent of the appellant could not be enforced against him.