RADHA KRISHNA Vs. RAM NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit which gives rise to this appeal was instituted for setting aside a compromise and a decree for money passed on the basis of the compromise.

(2.) The plaintiff is a minor. Defendants 2 to 4 are his brothers. After their father's death defendant 2, Gauri Shankar," executed promissory notes for Rupees 75,000 in favour of Ram Narain, defendant 1. Mt. Janki Kuar (defendant 5) and her three sons Manni Lal (defendant 3), Kanhai Lal (defendant 4) and Radha Krishna (plaintiff) sued Gauri Shankar (defendant 2) for partition of the joint family property. While the suit was pending Ram Narain (defendant 1) brought a suit, No. 53 of 1928, against Gauri Shankar and his three brothers on the basis of the promissory notes. Both the suits were decided according to a compromise filed on 8 August 1928. Ram Narain's suit was decreed in full against Mt. Janki Kuar and her three sons. Gauri Shankar surrendered his share in the family property in return for being absolved from liability in respect of Ram Narain's claim.

(3.) The plaintiff instituted the present suit for cancellation of the compromise and the decree passed upon its basis, alleging that he was a minor and his interests were not protected by any validly appointed guardian ad litem, and that he is not bound by the compromise and the decree which were obtained by fraud. He paid a court-fee of Rs. 10 only, as for a simple declaratory suit, although the suit was valued at Rs. 70,350 for the purpose of jurisdiction. Objection was made that the court-fee should be paid ad valorem on Rs. 70,350. The plaintiff then applied to amend his plaint so that the prayer for relief should read as follows: It may be declared that the petition of compromise dated 8 August 1928 and the decree passed upon its basis in Suit No. 53 of 1928 are ineffectual and null and void as against the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff is not bound thereby.