KANUNGOE KRISHUN PROSAD Vs. ROMESH CHUNDER MANDUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are by the minor plaintiff in two suits which he brought through his mother and guardian for a declaration that neither he nor his ancestral properties were bound by two decrees passed against his father and himself on the 30 June, 1904, on the basis of a compromise which he alleges was collusive and fraudulent and was inoperative as against him he being a minor at the time and the decree having been passed without any judicial enquiry or finding as to whether the compromise was for his benefit, although a formal order of sanction to file the compromise petitions was given to an official of the Court who acted as his guardian ad litem.

(2.) It appears that the grandfather of the plaintiff, one Hara Prosad Roy, executed a mortgage bond charging the ancestral property with a debt for the discharge of certain previous debts secured by decrees under which the mortgaged property was liable to sale. This was on the 30 May, 1890, before the plaintiff's birth and was for Rs. 5,200.

(3.) On the 10 September, 1890, the said Hara Prosad Roy and the plaintiff's father Ram Prosad Roy gave a mortgage of the ancestral property for a sum of Rs. 18,500. Upon these two mortgages the defendants brought two suits Nos. 35 and 33 of 1903 against the plaintiff.