Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHANDRA REDDY,SRINIVASACHARI, JJ.
Palakurthi Appalaraju
Versus
Tyla Yedukondalu
Appeal No. 724 of 1951 against decree of Sub-J, Kakinada, in O. S. No. 56 of 1950.
Decided On : 08-01-1957
GUARDIAN AND MINOR - PROMISSORY NOTE - EXECUTION BY GUARDIAN - EXCLUSION OF PERSONAL LIABILITY - ENFORCEABILITY AGAINST MINOR'S ESTATE - O. 32 R. 7, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - APPLICABILITY TO COMPROMISES ENTERED INTO AFTER DECREE.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of half a share of casurina plantations raised on a land belonging to the defendant's father. The defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his widow and son were brought on record as his legal representatives. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the agreement on which the suit was based was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The plaintiff and the guardian of the minor defendant entered into a compromise agreement, under which the plaintiff agreed to refrain from carrying the matter in appeal to the High Court in exchange for a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. A promissory note was executed by the guardian in favor of the plaintiff for the payment of the said sum. The plaintiff filed a suit on the basis of the promissory note, which was dismissed by the trial court on the grounds that the promissory note was unenforceable against the minor's estate, that there was no consideration for the suit promissory note, and that the compromise offended the provisions of O. 32 R. 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant's father to grow trees on the land and divide the proceeds after they were fully grown created an interest in land and required registration. The court also held that the promissory note executed by the guardian of the minor defendant, which excluded her personal liability, was unenforceable against the minor's estate. The court further held that the compromise agreement between the plaintiff and the guardian of the minor defendant was voidable at the instance of the minor as it was entered into without the leave of the court in violation of O. 32 R. 7 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant's father to grow trees on the land and divide the proceeds after they were fully grown created an interest in land and required registration? 2. Whether the promissory note executed by the guardian of the minor defendant, which excluded her personal liability, was enforceable against the minor's estate? 3. Whether the compromise agreement between the plaintiff and the guardian of the minor defendant was voidable at the instance of the minor as it was entered into without the leave of the court in violation of O. 32 R. 7 of the Civil Procedure Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An agreement to grow trees on land belonging to one of the parties, and after the trees fully grew up they should be divided into two equal halves or that they should be cut and the sale proceeds be divided into two halves creates an interest in land so as to require registration and failure to do so will render the document inadmissible in evidence and no relief could be granted on the basis of such a document. 2. No decree could be passed against a minor on an instrument in which the guardian had excluded her personal liability and the guardian is not a party to the suit. 3. O. 32 R. 7 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to compromises or agreements entered into not only prior to the decree but also subsequent to the decree, if it covers matters relating to the suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
CHANDRA REDDY, J. : -
This appeal is brought by the plaintiff against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada dismissing his suit for recovery of Rs. 5,070-13-3 from the property of the minor defendant. The suit was based on a promissory note executed by the guardian and next friend of the minor on 20-1-1950 marked as Ex. A-7 in favour of the plaintiff. The promissory note came to be executed under the following circumstances.
The present plaintiff filed Original Suit No. 51 of 1948 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada for partition and for separate possession of half a share of the casurina plantations raised on a land belonging to the 1st defendant therein i.e., the father of the present defendant and for recovery of Rs. 4000/- being the value of the half share of the trees which the defendant had cut and carried away. That plaint was founded on the allegation that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant whereunder the plaintiff was to plant casurina and water them for two years at his expense, that the taxes for the lands were to be paid in equal halves by the parties, that after the expiry of two years the defendant should himself look after the casurina bees, that when the trees grew up they should be cut and each of the parties should take one half of the yield.
In pursuance of the aforesaid agreement the plaintiff planted the trees and after they grew up, the defendants without the knowledge of the plaintiff and unauthorisedly cut and carried away a large number of trees worth about Rs. 7,000/-.
2. Pending the suit the defendant died and his widow and the son the present defendant were brought on record as his legal representatives. The suit was posted for further hearing on 16-1-1950. On that date an adjournment was asked for on the ground that the matter was compromised between the parties. It was accordingly adjourned to 18-1-1950, but no compromise petition was filed. The learned Subordinate Judge thereupon delivered the judgment dismissing the suit with costs and upholding the contention of the defendant that the suit could not be based upon an agreement which was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.
The learned Subordinate Judge also expressed a doubt in the course of the judgment as to the genuineness of the contract said to have been executed by the defendant therein. On 20-1-1950 the guardian of the minor entered into a compromise with the plaintiff agreeing to pay him a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, the consideration therefore being the plaintiff refraining from carrying the matter in appeal to the High Court. For payment of this money a promissory note was executed by the guardian, which is marked as Ex. A-7 in the case.
3. Having regard to the importance of this document in the context of this present enquiry, it is useful to set out the contents of the document in extenso.
"The suit O. S. No. 51 of 1948 on the file of the Sub Court, Kakinada was decided in favour of the minors. However you are trying to take the matter in appeal to the High Court. As the pleader gave us the advice that it is not possible to say as to how the final result would turn on the point of law, we have in the presence of Sri Venpatti Ramabrahman Garu effected a settlement with the terms that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) should be given to you in cash towards the value of your share in the casurina grove covered by the said suit, that you should give up the entire rights to your share as also the right to prefer the appeal etc., against the said decree and that you should receive the bid amount of Rs. 250/- deposited by you into Court.
Having felt that it is beneficial to the interest of the minors, I have agreed to the said terms. 1 shall on demand pay in cash to you or to your order the said sum of rupees five thousand together with interest accruing due thereon at the rate of Re. 0-8-0 per cent per mensem and take a return of this pro-note after getting the endrosemen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
