LAWS(PVC)-1939-1-142

RAMNARAIN SINGH Vs. ATAL BEHARI SINGH

Decided On January 31, 1939
RAMNARAIN SINGH Appellant
V/S
ATAL BEHARI SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party instituted a suit for the recovery of 15 dhurs of land alleging that the petitioners had encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs. Two of the plaintiffs and two of the defendants were minors. These minors were represented in the suit by guardians. An application was filed on behalf of all the parties requesting the Court to refer the matter in dispute to arbitration. The application was signed by the adult plaintiffs and defendants and by the guardians of the minor plaintiffs and defendants.

(2.) There was also an application made by the guardian of the minor defendants for permission to enter into the agreement to refer to arbitration but no such application was made by the guardian of the minor plaintiffs. The Court considered the application to refer the matter to arbitration and referred it to arbitration. When the arbitrators submitted their award, objection was taken on behalf of the minor defendants. This objection was overruled. An application was then made on behalf of the minor defendants for review on the ground that the Court had not recorded express permission to the guardians of the minor plaintiffs and defendants to agree to refer the suit to arbitration. The application for review having been disallowed, this petition in revision has been presented on behalf of the defendants.

(3.) In course of the argument reference was made to the decision of this Court in Hanuman Rai V/s. Jagdish Rai A.I.R (1916) . Pat. 223 where it was held that the next friend or guardian of a minor cannot compromise on behalf of the minor without the leave of the Court expressly recorded in the proceedings. It is noticeable that in that case the guardian sought to withdraw from the compromise before the Court recorded its permission for her to enter into the compromise and it was observed by the learned Chief Justice: It appears to me that it would not be right to hold that the Court was entitled to force the compromise on Mt. Raj Rani (the guardian) after she had withdrawn her petition praying for the leave of the Court to enter into the compromise.