BODAPATI RAJESWARARAO Vs. PULIGEDDA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order recording a compromise in a suit for a declaration that the present appellant--second defendant in that suit--was not validly adopted by the widow of the maternal uncle of the plaintiffs. The family with which we are concerned comprised originally one Lakshminarasimham who died in May 1934, leaving certain properties, his sister, the present first defendant and another sister Sundaramma who died in 1938, the mother of the plaintiffs. His widow Seethayamma had a number of sisters, one of whom was married to the present third defendant, her son being the minor appellant. She also had a brother, the fourth defendant, who is said to have been acting as the guardian of the appellant. Seethayamma died in July 1941 and she is alleged to have adopted the appellant shortly before her death and to have made a will entrusting to her brother, the fourth defendant, the guardianship of the minor. There were two suits pending at the time of the compromise. One with which we are immediately concerned is O.S. No. 63 of 1941. The connected suit was filed by the same plaintiffs against the sisters of Seethayamma. Without going into the details of that suit, which is O.S. No. 54 of 1943, we may say that it concerned the title of the estate of Lakshminarasimham to certain properties originally mortgaged in his favour and sold in discharge of the mortgage to the sisters of Lakshminarasimham's wife. The contention of the plaintiffs was that the sisters-in-law were benamidars for Lakshminarasimham and that he was entitled to the properties and that they as his heirs could claim it.

(2.) The compromise was put into Court by the plaintiffs with an ordinary petition to record it. There was no formal application for leave to enter into the compromise filed on behalf of the guardian ad litem, the fourth defendant. Nor was there any formal certificate by the advocate appearing for the minor that the compromise was beneficial to the minor; but the advocate himself signed the agreement of compromise and this is, in the opinion of the learned trial Judge, a sufficient indication of his opinion that it was beneficial to the minor, though we must point out that the learned Judge was wrong in saying that in the body of the compromise it is stated that the compromise is beneficial to the minor second defendant. There is no reference in the compromise petition to the minority of the second defendant except in the heading thereof.

(3.) While this petition to pass a decree in terms of the compromise was pending an application was preferred by the natural mother of the second defendant praying for the removal of the fourth defendant from the guardianship and her appointment in his stead. This petition was plainly filed in order to put a stop to the compromise proceedings; but it was rejected. The terms of the compromise are that the first defendant should at once get possession of items 1 and 2 of schedule A and should receive profits in respect of those two items, that she should also get possession of certain salt pans and the first defendant with the consent of the plaintiffs should abandon the contention that items 1 and 2 of B schedule are the stridhanam properties of Seethayamma. By way of quid pro quo the minor second defendant is given item 2 of schedule B and the plaintiffs and the first defendant give up all claim to the moveable properties specified in the plaint schedule. Then the compromise turns to the matters in the connected suit, O.S. No. 54 and it is provided that the sisters of Seethayamma, who are the defendants in that suit, shall undertake to discharge a certain promissory note debt and that in return the plaintiffs shall withdraw their suit for the properties standing in the names of the defendants in that suit. Then follows a provision which seems to us to be of great importance in considering this matter, though it has been apparently overlooked by the trial Court. This is a provision that towards the cost of the first plaintiff both in O.S. No. 63 and in O.S. No. 54, the defendants 2, 3 and 4 in O.S. No. 63 shall pay a sum of Rs. 400 and the first defendant shall pay Rs. 1,000. By the time when the compromise was recorded in the adoption suit, O.S. No. 63 it was already clear that the connected compromise of O.S. No. 54 had broken down and the order recording the compromise of Q.S. No. 63 directs that the trial of O.S. No. 54, Which is coveted by the same petition, should proceed.