SANTU Vs. ABHAINANDAM PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises on a suit brought for arrears of rent for the years 1326 and 1327 Fusli against Lochan his four nephews, Jamna, Jaisri, Santu and Chatardhari. The two last-named are minors. The plaintiff claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 275-8 year basing his claim on a compromise entered into between the parties in a previous suit brought by him for the ejectment of the defendants in the revenue Court in 1919. Until that year the rent of the holding had been Rs. 95. But in this compromise it was agreed that, if the ejectment proceedings were given up, the defendant would in future pay at the rate of Rs. 275-8.

(2.) The principal argument adduced in this Court on behalf of the appellants is that the compromise was invalid, inasmuch as two of the present appellants were at the time minors and the provisions of Order 32, Rule 7, Civil P.C. were not observed by the Court before the decree was passed. It is contended that, though it appears that Jaisri acted as guardian ad litem in the first suit for his younger brothers Santu and Chatardbari, he did not obtain the leave of the Court to enter into the compromise on their behalf, and the Court's leave was not expressly recorded in the proceedings, It is further contended that the compromise was not for the benefit Of the minors. A further point taken's that the compromise is inadmissible in evidence, inasmuch as it is unregistered and was not incorporated in the decree of the Revenue Court.

(3.) It is not clear whether Jaisri was ever actually appointed guardian ad litem of his younger brothers by the Court, but the compromise has been signed by Loohan on behalf of all his nephews and it is specifically stated that he also signs on behalf of Jaisri, who was acting as guardian of Santu and Chatardhari. The lower appellate Court has taken the view that, as Loch an and his nephews formed a joint Hindu family of which Lochan was the manager and head, he sufficiently represented all his nephews including the minors. The learned pleader for the appellants refers to Ganesha Row V/s. Tuljaram Row (1913) 36 Mad. 295, tin which their Lordships of the Privy Council held that in a casa where the father and manager of a joint Hindu family was appointed by the Court guardian ad litem of one of his minor sons, he could not without leave of the Court do any act in his capacity of father or managing member of the joint family which he was debarred from doing as guardian ad litem, and that, therefore, a compromise made without the leave of the Court by the father was not binding on his minor son. In that case, however, their Lordships declined to express any opinion on the extent to which the acts of a father or managing member might effect a minor who was a nutty to the suit represented by another parson as next friend or guardian ad litem. The ruling, therefore, does not directly cover the facts of the present case. In Badri Prasad V/s. Gopal Bihari Lal (1919) 41 All. 553 it was held that, where a compromise in a suit is entered into on behalf minors appearing by a next friend, it is necessary to the validity of such compromise that there should be on the record a specific order giving leave to the next friend to enter into the compromise on behalf of the minors. Here again it was the next friend appointed by the Court who executed the compromise.