BADRI SINGH Vs. CHHOTU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge on 13 February 1933, decreeing in part a suit for partition, by a preliminary decree. The plaintiff being dissatisfied has appealed to this Court. The case has taken a very tortuous course as appears from a study of the order- sheet, which is printed at pp. 47.48 of the paper, book. The suit was instituted in 1930 and on 6 June 1931 the parties asked the Court for an opportunity to file a petition of compromise. Accordingly two days afterwards a petition of compromise was filed. The guardian ad litem of the minor defendant 7 also applied for permission to com. promise the suit on behalf of all the minors. On 18 June 1931 the Court accepted the compromise petition and passed the following order: Let the suit be decreed in terms of the compromise petition, filed on 8 June, 1931. It is decreed ex parte against defendant 13 Let a final decree be prepared. The compromise petition will form a part of the decree. The suit is dismissed against the pro forma defendant 15.

(2.) It appears that thereafter on 28 May 1932, i.e. about a year afterwards, the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded to review the order of 18 June 1931, under the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151, Civil P.C., and he set aside the compromise so far as the minor, at whose instance he was moved, was concerned, upon the ground that inasmuch as defendants 2 to 5 who have one-third share in the properties got by the com promise properties of the value of Rupees 1529 whereas the minor defendant 7 whose share was also one-third, got properties of the value of Rs. 302-14-0. The learned Subordinate Judge set aside the compromise upon his view that it was not for the benefit of that minor. He also took into consideration the fact that there was no express order recording that the com. promise was for the benefit of the minor.

(3.) Accordingly the suit was restored to its original number resulting, after hearing, in the decree of 13 February 1933 as already indicated. The learned Subordinate Judge was in error when he thought that it was necessary that there should have been an express order stating that the compromise was for the benefit of the minor. It has been repeatedly held by the Privy Council that it is enough if the attention of the Court is directed specifically to the fact that there is a minor involved and the compromise is brought to its notice and that if thereafter a decree is ordered to be passed in terms of the compromise, it must be assumed that the Court has complied with the requirements of the law. But however that may be, the situation is that the party affected not having appealed against the order of 28 May 1932 the appeal has to be decided on the merits.