VENKATA ROW Vs. TULJARAM ROW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The real question for determination on these appeals is as to the effect of a compromise entered into on November 21, 1897, between Rajaram Row, purporting to act both for himself and as guardian of his minor son Venkata Row, and Tuljaram Row. The compromise related to certain claims then existing between Rajaram Row and his son, as constituting a joint Hindu family, against Tuljaram Row, and it arose in this manner. Originally Venkata Row, together with his four sons, Ramachandra Row, Luchmand Row, Rajaram Row, and Tuljaram Row, formed a joint Hindu family, governed by the Mitakshara law. Venkata Row died in 1871, survived by his sons, and in 1881 the joint family was dissolved, and a division of the joint estate took place, leaving the great part of it in the hands and under the control of Tuljaram Row, who was the manager of the family. In 1886 a suit was brought by Atmaram, the son of Luchmand, against Tuljaram Row, for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of the family assets remaining in his hands, for the necessary accounts, partition, and other relief, and to this suit all the members of the family were parties. Two orders were made in that suit, one on October 21, 1896, and the other on August 17, 1897, and by these orders Tuljaram Row was decreed as liable to pay to Rajaram Row and his branch of the family certain sums of rupees. The compromise to which reference has been made was a compromise of the rights possessed by Rajaram Row and his son Under these decrees.

(2.) The compromise was a very simple matter. It consisted in releasing Tuljaram Row from all liability to make the payments which he had been ordered by the High Court to make, payments which were on the face of them considerable in extent; and the only consideration mentioned was that Tuljaram would agree not to prosecute an appeal which he then had on foot against these orders. In other words, Rajaram Row, acting in his own interest and on behalf of his infant son, gave up and surrendered, without any further struggle, all the rights to which he was then entitled, together with his son, in the decrees of October, 1896, and August, 1897.

(3.) It is not surprising in these circumstances that on Venkata Row attaining his majority in 1906 he should have taken steps to challenge the validity of his compromise. A suit was accordingly instituted by him under the name of Ganesha Row against Tuljaram and Rajaram Row seeking to recover the monies mentioned in the decrees as "the undivided son" of Rajaram Row. He failed both before the Judge of first instance and in the Court of Appeal. The matter then came before the Judicial Committee, and on March 7, 1913, it was decided that the compromise did not bind, and could not bind, the infant, who ought to be remitted to his original rights under the decrees in the suits referred to, and the case was remitted to deal with the remaining issues on this footing.