LexBISHUNDEO NARAIN AND ANOTHER versus SEOGENI RAI AND JAGERNATH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1951
Slll6tle• Si gh
v.
Ma/roraja
Bah•dur of
Gi4/raur
Fazl All J.
548
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951]
the statement of case filed in this court on behalf of
the appellant, it has not been stated that there is no
evidence to show that the plaintiff was
in possession
of the disputed land or the land mentioned in schedule
U within 12 years of the suit.
Thus both the points urged in this appeal fail. There
can be no doubt that the entire tenure has passed to
the plaintiff by the sale, but, apart from this fact, it is
well-settled that a zamindar is presumed to be the
owner of the underground rights in the
tenancies
created by him in the absence of evidence that he
ever parted with them: [See Hari Narayan Singh v.
Sriram
Chak_ravarthi(1) and
Durga Prasad Singh v.
Braja Nath Bose(')].
The result is that this appeal fails, and it is dismissed
with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant : R. R. Biswas.
Agent for the respondent : R. C. Prasad.
BISHUNDEO NARAIN AND ANOTHER
"·
SEOGENI RAI AND JAGERNATH
[Smu liAB.ILAL
KANIA
C. J.,
PATANJALI SAsTRI,
- MEHAR CHAND MAHAJAN, S. R. DAs and
VIVIAN BOSE JJ.]
Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), 0. 32, r. 7-Suit for parti-
lion to which minor is party-Compromise by guardian-Sanction
of Court not obtained before entering into agreement-Validity of
decree-Suit by minor to set aside decree-Mere unfairness of divi-
non, effect of.
Where a Court has sanctioned an agrccm.cnt or compromise in
a suit to which a minor is a party after satisfying itself that it
is for the minor's benefit, the decree based on the agreement or
compromise cannot be held to be invalid or not binding on the
minor merely because the sanction of the Court was not obtained
by the next friend or guardian before he began to negotiate for
the agrccmC11t or compromise.
(I) 37 I.A. 136
(2) 39 I.A. 133
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
549
Awadesh Prasad Missir v. Widow of Tribeni Prasad Missir (I.L.R.
19 Pat. 343) disapproved.
·
The rule that in the case of partition between. members of a
joint Hindu family one of whom is a minor, if the minor, on ob-
taining majority, is able to show that the division was unfair and
. unjust, the court will set it aside, does not apply to decrees in
partition suits in which the minor was properly represented before
the court. The 'decree is as binding on him as on the adult parties
unless the minor can show fraud or negligence on the part of. his
friend or guardian ad litem.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
}UIUSDICTION.
Civil
Appeal
No. 78 of 1950.
Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated the
1st December, 1942, of the High Court of Judicature at
Patna (Manohar Lal and Shearer JJ.) in F. A. No. 188
of 1939 arising out of a Decree dated the 23rd Decem-
ber, 1937, of the Subordinate Judge at Saron, Chapra,
in Suit No. 48 of 1936.
H. /. Umrigar for the Appellant.
S. P. Sinha (S. N. Mukherjee, with him) for the
Respondent No. 1.
1951. May 4. The Judgment of the Court was deliver-
ed by
'
BosE J.-This is a plaintiffs' appeal from a judg-
ment and decree of the. High Court of Judicature at
Patna. Their Lordships of the Privy Council had
granted special leave and the matter has been trans-
ferred to this Court.
The suit out of which the appeal arises was for a
declaration tliat a compromise decree, made in a pre-
vious suit for partition, does not bind the
plaintiffs.
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants also
contends that he asked for partition in the present case.
But that is a matter of . doubt.
The facts in brief are as follows :
The parties are members of a family whose cc>mmon
ancestor was one 1Moti Rai. A long genealoiPcal tree was
attached to the plaint but it is not necessary to repro-
duce more than the following :
.
1951
Bishundeo
Narain
and Another
'!/.
Seogeni Rai
and lagernath •
550
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951}
Moti Rai
I
Bha,an Rai
HuariRai
Ghuahull,Rai
r-
FirangiJ Rai
J .
Seogcni Rai /
Deft. No. I
I
Charichan Rai
I
Bikram
I
Rai
sons
sons
Defts 3,
4 & s.
~-~-----,
Bisundeo Rai
Gaurisbankar Ra
Plff. No. I
PUf. No. 2
Defis II & 12
1951
B1'shundeo
Nara;n
and Another
v.
Seogen/ Rai
and Jagernath·
Moti Rai had two sons, Bhanjan Rai and Hazari
Rai. The defendants are descended from the former
and the plaintiffs from the latter. The contesting defen-
dant is Seogeni Rai, son of Firangi Rai. The plaintiffs
did not disclose that Mo ti Rai' s two sonExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.