DHARUP RAJ MISIR Vs. RAM AUDHESH MISIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal and arises out of a suit brought by them against the defendants-respondents for a declaration that decree No, 225 of 1930 of the Court of the Additional Munsif of Jaunpur, dated 17 December 1930, was not binding on them. The property which was in dispute in suit No. 225 of 1930, in which the decree in, dispute was passed had been purchased by the father of the defendant Ram Audhesh for Rs. 200 in 1904 in his own name. A suit was brought by Ram Audesh against the father of the plaintiffs for a declaration that the property in dispute belonged to him (Ram Audesh) and that the defendants had no right in it. The parties referred the suit to one Shubkaran and the decree was passed on the statement of the referee (Shubkaran). The plaintiffs brought this suit on the allegation that their father was under the influence of bhang as well as in a fit of anger and was incapable of understanding his affairs when he referred the suit to Shubkaran. The suit has been dismissed by the Courts below on the finding that the decree is binding on the plaintiffs as the decree has not been obtained by any fraud or mis-representation. It was also found that their father was neither under the influence of any drug nor angry.

(2.) The first point for consideration in this case is whether a father of a joint Hindu family can represent his sons and other members of his family in a suit. It is a general rule of Hindu law that the manager represents the family in all transactions with the outer world provided these transactions are family matters. Indeed, if it were not so it is difficult to understand how the affairs of the family could be carried on. If this proposition is correct, there can be no good reason why the manager should cease to represent the family when the family has to institute or defend a suit in a Court of Justice. In the Full Bench case of Hori Lal V/s. Nimman Kunwar (1912) 34 All. 549, where in a suit for sale on a mortgage the defendants mortgagors were the managing members of a joint Hindu family, who in that capacity had purchased the mortgaged property, it was held that the family was sufficiently represented by the managing members and that the suit would not fail by reason of the non-joinder of the other members of the family.

(3.) It being so, the next question is in which cases can members of a joint Hindu family challenge consent or compromise decree obtained by or passed against the manager of the family. All the cases so far decided show that such a decree can be challenged only in the case of fraud or misrepresentation. In Pitam Singh V/s. Ujagar Singh (1875-78) 1 All. 651, in March 1867, J sued for possession of a moiety of the share originally held by B's widow, then deceased, and for a declaration of his right to a moiety of the share held originally by D's widow. In June 1867, the parties to the suit effected a compromise agreeing to divide the estate into four lots on certain conditions, a decree was accordingly passed in the terms of the compromise. K. J's son, sued in 1876 in his father's life-time, to obtain the same relief as his father had sought in 1867. and a declaration that the arrangement effected by the compromise and the decree was ineffectual. It was held that, assuming that the estate was joint until 1867 K was, in the absence of fraud, bound by the compromise entered into by his father and his suit was not maintainable. It is also competent to the father of a joint Hindu family in his capacity of managing member of the family to refer disputes to arbitration and the award made on such a reference, if in other respects valid, will be binding on the sons. In Jagan Nath V/s. Mannu Lal (1894) 16 All. 231, the respondent andhis father formed a joint Hindu family of which the father was the manager. It was observed that the father represented the family as such manager and in the absence of fraud or collusion which had not even been suggested in that case, his acts were binding ion the other members of the family: Pitam Singh V/s. Ujagar Singh (1875-78) 1 All. 651, referred to above was followed.