MOHSENUDDIN AHAMMAD Vs. KHABIRUDDIN AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an application made under Rule 17 of the Second Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) It appears that the descendants of a person of the name of Jhalu Mandal are in dispute as to the extent of their joint properties and as to the manner in which they should be distributed amongst them On the 21st October 1916 these persons entered or purported to enter into an agreement to refer the dispute to the decision of certain arbitrators. The application under Rule 17 was made by or on behalf of five of the persons whose signatures appear on the agreement to refer. It was made on the 4th April 1917. After hearing the parties the Subordinate Judge directed that the agreement should be filed and that the matters in dispute should be referred to the arbitrators named in the deed of agreement. Against this order Mohsinuddin Ahmad, one of the parties to the agreement, has appealed.

(3.) He contends before us that in entering into this agreement he acted under coercion, and he further contends that as a matter of fact the agreement referred to was abandoned by the parties thereto and never became operative. These are matters into which we do not think it necessary to enter, because we are of opinions that oil a further contention this appeal must succeed. of the persons who purported to enter into the agreement two are minors, Din Mohamad and Kasirannessa, in whose behalf when executing this agreement their mother Sakhina Bibi acted. It is contended by the appellant that inasmuch as Sakhina Bibi, the mother, was not appointed guardian of the properties of the minors by the District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act, she is not competent to deal with the properties of the minors and not competent to enter on their behalf into the agreement to refer td arbitration, the said agreement being one which will necessarily, if acted upon, involve dealings with the properties of the minors.