LexDOKKU BHUSHAYYA versus KATRAGADDA RAMAKRISHNAYYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'(
.·~
.·
2 s.o.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
DOKKU lJHUSHAYYA
v.
KATRAGADDA RAMAKRISHNAYYA
(A. K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO and
J. R. MUDBOLKAR, JJ,)
Oiml Procedure-Decree against minor-ErcecutW.. and
sale-ApPlication for setting
aside
sale-Oompromise by
guardian-L·eave of Oourt not obtained-Whether binding· on
minor-Oode of OitJil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), s. U,
0. 82, r. 7.
One B obtained a decree for money 11gainst the appel·
!ant and bis father. The appellant was a minor and was re-
presented by his maternal grandfather as his guardian. In
e:Xecution certain properties were sold and the appellant filed
an application for setting aside the sale through his guardian.
The guardian entered into a compromise with the decree hold·
er and the auction purchaser under which the application was
withdrawn. Subsequently the sale was confirmed. Afte.i at·
taining majority the appellant filed a suit for setting aside the
order for withdrawal of the application for setting aside the
sale and for a rehearing of that application on the ground that
the guardian had not obtained the leave of the court as requir·
ed by 0.32, r. 7 Code of Civil Procedure before entering into
the compromise.
Held, (per Suhba Rao and Mudholkar, JJ., Sarkar,J.
contra)· the 0.32, r. 7 was not applicable to the withdrawal of
the application for setting aside the sale and the order for
withdrawal of that application was binding on the appellant.
Order 32, r. 7 is applicable only to "an agreement or compro•
misc with reference to the suit", and there · are the following
limitations to its applicability: (i) it is applicable only· where
the rights put in issue in the suit are involved and not to· mere
procedural steps; {ii) it is applicable ouly during the pcndency
of the suit which mcludes execution proceedings; and (HI) th~
agreement or compromise must be with a party to the suit.
Though the application for setting aside the sale was an ap,o
plication in execution of the decree, the agreement or compro.,
misc entered into by the guardian with the auction purchaser
to withdraw the application did not affect the rights and liabi·
lities declared by the decree and therefore leave of the court
under 0.32, r.7, was not necessary. Section Ul of the Code
lllf•
-.u .. JllusMi,,.
..
Kalr•g•ido
Roi..t,;,,Ar.oyJ•
500
SUPREME COURT REPOR'8 (1963)
could not be utilised to make 0.32, r.7 applicable to the agree-
ment in question ass. 141 was applicable to original proceed-
ings and not to proceedings in execution
Virupakshappa v. Shidappa and Baaappa. (1901) I.L.R.
26 Born. II 0, Arunachellam Chettg v. Ramanadhan C Mlty,
(1906) I. L.R. 29 Mad. 309 MutlwlaJ:/cammal v. Narar>pa
Rwdier, (1933) l.L.R. 56 Mad. 430, Jitendra Nath Roy v.
Samartndra Nath Mitter (1943) L.R. 70 I.A. 68,
Katn•11i
Y•.U:atal:rishnayya
v.
Garapati China KanaJ:agya,
l.L.R.
(1938) Mad. 819 and Thalcur Praaad v. Sheikh Fa/cir Ullah,
(1894) L.R. 22 I.A. 44, referred to.
Per Sarkar,J.-The leave of the <.ourt under 0.32, r. 7
was ncc•'ssary before the guardian could enter into the agree-
ment or compromise to withdraw the application for setting
aside the sal<.
There wa• no j'1sti6cation for limiting the op-
eration of the rule in iu application to execution proceedings
only to compromises which directly all'ected the rights and lia-
bilities under the de-:rcc; it was applicable to all compromises
which brought a proceeding to an end thereby affecting the
rights and liabilities of the minor. The compromise in the
present case was not merely concerned with the conduct of pro-
ceedings but it seriously affected the liability of the appellant
under the decree.
Virupakshappa v. Shidappa, (1901)1.L.R. 26 Bom. 109,
Rhodu v. Swithenbank, (1889) L. R. 22 Q. B. O. 577, Gurmal-
lappa v. Mallllppa, (1920) I.L.R. 44 Bom. 574 and Katn•11i
Vtnlcalalcriahna111J"
v. Ganapati China Kana/cayya,
(1938)
I.L.R. Mad. 819, refrrrcd to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JurusDICTION: Civil Appeal
483 of 1957.
Appeal from the judgment and
decree dated November 25, 1949, of the Madras
High Court in Appeal No. 66 of 1946.
A. V. Vi$wanatha Saatri and T.V.R. Tatachari
for the appellabt.
Bhimsllfl,/lkarama and B K.B. Naidu, for ree·
pondents Nos. l and 2.
T. Sat,yarwra11a11, for respondents Noe. 7 and 8.
1962. April 27. Sarkar, J., delivered a eepa·
rate Judgment. The Judgmfint of 8ubba Rao and
Mudholkar, JJ., was de-livered by Subha Rao, J.
•
2 s.c.R.
SUPREMEExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.