GURMALLAPPA MALLAPPA KATTI Vs. MALLAPPA MARTANDAPPA TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case arc very clearly set out at p. 6 of the print.

(2.) The plaintiffs are minors and in effect their mother as next friend has sued to set aside the sale-deed of the 17th July 1000 passed by her as their natural guardian. It has boon found by both the lower Courts that the deed was passed for legal purposes, but the sale-deed has been declared to be void on the ground that the sanction of the Court was necessary. This, on the facts stated, involves a confusion of ideas. It is true that on an award decree against the plaintiffs father execution proceedings wore commenced, against the minors represented by one Baslingapa as their guardian ad litem, after which terms of compromise were arranged. An application to the Court was presented by both parties intimating they had entered into a compromise. The plaintiffs application was signed however not by Baslingapa but by their mother. The Court recorded it, without granting or rejecting it. Clearly the application signed by plaintiffs mother was not in order. Thereafter the Court passed an order in execution,

(3.) In spite of that the mother executed the sale-deed now in question, and as it has been found that it was for legal purposes and for the minor-plaintiffs benefit it cannot be avoided unless it can be held that the powers of their mother as their natural guardian to satisfy the decree passed against their father were entirely suspended, from the time the execution proceedings commenced, or must be taken as suspended in consequence of her own action. The fact that Neelava agreed to sell the lands on the same terms as had been agreed upon by the compromise apparently made with the guardian ad litem which was never sanctioned by the Court is a mere coincidence, and is irrelevant to the general question which we have to deal with, and which so far as can be discovered has not yet been decided by the Courts in India. The question was referred to in Granesha Row v. Tuljaram Row (1913) I.L.R. 36 Mad. 295, P.C., but their Lordships of the Privy Council said then that that question was not in issue on the facts of that case; as the father of the minor had been appointed guardian ad litem in the suit, and his powers of management so far as they related to the minor s interest in the suit were held to be controlled by the provisions of Section 462 of the Code of 1882. Now in this case a decree was passed against the minor s father based on an award, and after his death the creditors sought to execute it, against his heirs. Neelava could have settled that claim by transferring these lands to the creditors and receiving Rs. 175 and on the facts found such a transaction could not now be disputed.