DHIRENDRA KUMAR GARG AND ORS. versus SMT. SUGANDHI BAI JAIN & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 23-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
DHIRENDRA KUMAR GARG AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT. SUGANDHI BAI JAIN & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 23, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, en, M.H. KANIA AND LAUT 
MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 0.32. Rule 7-Compromise 
decree--Minor represented by guardian-Application for leave--Court 
to see that compromise was not one sided. 
The husband of respondent No. 1 sought eviction of the appel· 
!ants-tenants. The suit was decreed in his favour along with money 
decree for arrears of rent and damages. During the pendency of the 
appeal the plaintiff died and his legal representatives were substituted 
as respondents. Some of his children who were minor were placed 
D under the guardianship of respondent No. 1. Consequent to a petition 
by the parties a compromise decree was passed setting aside the entire 
decree. The respondents thereafter challenged the compromise decree. 
The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal the first appellate court 
reversed the decision. The High Court dismissed the appeal, preferred 
by the appellants. 
E 
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellants 
that as a consideration for the compromise they were giving up their 
right to claim costs which might have been decreed by the appellate 
court in case of their success on merits. The respondents' case was that 
the guardian of the minors was guilty of gross negligence in entering 
F into the compromise by failing to take into consideration the interest of 
the minors. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: The decision of the courts below does not call for any 
G interference. The compromise decree is fit to be set.aside on the ground 
of gross negligence. [199F; 199CJ 
The compromise was one sided whereby the minors were giving 
up their right under the trial court's decree both in respect of eviction 
as well as arrears of rent and damages. In view of the provisions of 
H Order XXXII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure it was essential 
196 
"'I 
D.K. GARG v. SMT. S.B. JAIN [SHARMA, J.] 
197 
for the Court to have granted permission to the guardian to enter 
into .the compromise only after considering all the relevant cir-
cumstances. [198F; 198C-D] 
The earlier civil appeal is restored to its file before the Additional 
District Judge for disposal in accordance with law. [199G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 350 
of 1977. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.1976 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No. 385 of 1974. 
S.N. Kacker and Shri Narain for the Appellants. 
Harish N. Salve, Mrs. P.S. Shroff, S.S. Shroff and S.A. Shroff 
for the Respondents. 
A 
B 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit 
filed by the respondent for setting aside the decree in an earlier suit 
being Suit No. 61-A of 1955 instituted by Dammu Lal, husband of the 
respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 2 to 12, for eviction of 
the appellants from a building in Raipur which is in their occupation as 
E 
tenants. Dammu Lal also prayed for a decree for arrears of rent and 
damages. The prayer for eviction was allowed along with a money 
decree for Rs.260 as arrears of rent and Rs.137 as damages. The 
tenants filed an appeal which was numbered as Civil Appeal No. 7-A 
of 1965. During the pendency Df the appeal Dammu Lal died, and his 
legal representatives were. substituted as respondents. Some of his 
F 
children were minoi who were placed under the guardianship of their 
mother Smt. Sugandhibai, respondent No. 1. An application pur-
porting to be a compromise petition on behalf of all the parties was 
filed before the court which was recorded and the suit was disposed of 
in its terms by the appellate court on 23.4.1966. According to the 
compromise the entire decree was set aside an0 1:1e suit was dismissed, 
G 
with the parties bearing their own costs. The respondents have chal-
lenged the compromise decree by the present suit. 
2. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal the first appel-
late court reversed the decision, set aside the compromise decree and 
directed the Civil Appel No. 7-A of 1965 to be disposed of afresh in 
H 
A 
B 
c 
198 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
accordance with law. By the impugned judgment the High Court dis-
missed the second appeal preferred by the appellants. 
3. Mr. Kacker, the learned counsel appearing in support of the 
appeal, placed the facts relevant to the several questions raised by the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.