GOBINDA CHANDRA PAL Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEIR Lordships are unable to entertain this petition and regret that a procedure should have been adopted by the High Court whish will delay the ultimate judgment and increase the expense. In truth, their Lordships are not in a position to deride whether the terms of compromise which they are asked to sanction are beneficial to the parties who are under a disability, nor can Counsel who appeared before them give them the requisite assurance that they have been able to investigate all material matters, and that the Board can safely act in making the desired order, All such questions are essentially and necessarily the proper subject for consideration of the Courts in India, who are in a position to institute the enquiries, to ask the question?, and to obtain the information which must always be required before sanctioning proceedings on behalf of people who are unable to assent for themselves. In rare cases it may be possible that this could be done here, and in their Lordships' desire to avoid the multiplication or prolongation of prolongantion, they may occasionally accept the burden, as was done in the case of Sakinabai v. Shirinibai 55 Ind. Cas. 943 : 47 I. A. 88 : 11 L. W. 486 : 38 M. L. J. 43: (1920) M. W. N. 311 : 18 A. L. J. 499 : 22 Bom. L. R. 552 : 2 U. P. I. H. (P. C.) 107 (P. C)., but this is not the regular and usual course, and in this case they are unable to adopt it. In all eases where it is desired to bind persons under disability by a compromise, it is of the utmost importance that there should be a clear* expression of opinion by the proper Court in India that such compromise is a baneficial one for those presons.

(2.) THE petition must stand over until the proper certificate has been obtained from the High Court.