RAJKUMAR Vs. MANGAD RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has no force and has been filed mainly in the interests of the next friend who was responsible for the suit.

(2.) The ostensible plaintiff to the suit was a minor Rajkumar on whose behalf the appeal is. His father Lachhman Das executed two mortgages in respect of the other defendants and on these mortgages decrees have been obtained by the mortgagees and the property has been advertised for sale. The plaintiff's case was that the property was the joint family property of himself and his father Lachhman Das and the mortgages having been executed without legal necessity, could not support the decrees and the property could not be sold.

(3.) The defence was that the property was the self-acquired property of Lachhman Das, that he got it under a settlement made by his maternal grandmother and the plaintiff had no interest in the property. The defendants also urged in the written statement that the suit was a frivolous one and had been brought only to harass the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge found that there was no foundation for the suit, that the property was the self-acquired property of Lachhman Das, that the plaintiff had no interest in the property and that the suit was a frivolous and vexatious one. In the result, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit and awarded, besides ordinary costs, a sum of Rs. 500 as further costs, by way of compensation under Section 35-A, Civil P.C., and directed that the sum be paid by Jwala Prasad, the next friend of the minor Rajkumar.