MADAN LAL Vs. KISHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit to realize the amount of a mortgage, dated the 11th August, 1884. It was pleaded by way of defence, amongst other things, that the plaintiff and his minor son, Bisheshar Dayal, were a joint Hindu family, and that the suit could not be maintained because the mortgage was of family property and the son was not made a party. Plaintiff urged against this plea that he was manager and represented the family. Plaintiff also asked that the plaint might be amended by stating therein that he sued as manager. The Court below refused to amend the plaint and dismissed the suit on the ground that the son was necessary a party to the suit.

(2.) The appeal has been referred to this Bench because of the conflict of judicial decisions on the question.

(3.) Apart from authority, I can see no reason why the son should be a necessary party to the suit. It must be assumed for the purpose of this appeal that the plaintiff is the manager of the family. If, before the suit was instituted, the owners of the equity of redemption had been ready and willing to pay off the mortgage, I think it is absolutely clear that the plaintiff as manager could receive the mortgage money and give the persons paying off the money a good discharge, and I can see no reason why they should require the presence of any other party.