SURENDRA NATH GHOSE Vs. HEMANGINI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in a suit by two minors, of whom one has now attained majority. They brought their action to obtain a declaration that a certain solenama, dated the 24 April 1901, filed by the defendant, and the decree, dated the 25 April 1901, passed in a partition suit, on the basis of that solenama, were invalid, inoperative, null and void. It appears that the compromise in question was sanctioned by the Court, and the sanctioning order was signed by the pleaders on both sides. Subsequently, an application for review was filed on behalf of a certain lady acting as guardian of the minor plaintiffs in the partition suit, but that application was withdrawn without any decision being arrived at upon it. Then a regular suit was instituted, which, also, was withdrawn. After this, the litigation giving rise to this second appeal commenced.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge, in his decision on the 5th, 6 and 8 issues, found that there was no specific evidence of fraud against the defendant, and he held that the terms of the solenama having been settled after much discussion and deliberation, and they being favourable and beneficial to the interests of the minors, and the solenama having been filed in Court in obedience to an order of the Subordinate Judge, it was binding upon the plaintiffs. The Court of first instance also found that the guardian of the minor plaintiffs in the partition suit was not, as a matter of fact, a consenting party to the compromise; but, as she had not repudiated the same before the decree was drawn up, it held that the solenama was binding upon the plaintiffs.

(3.) On appeal to the District Judge, that officer has found that the present suit is not one that could be maintained; and he has refrained from deciding the only other question raised in the case, namely, whether a solenama put in by a pleader, who had power merely to file it, could be properly put in against the express wishes of his clients and be binding on them.