SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1883 Supreme(Cal) 134

RICHARD GARTH, MACPHERSON
Preonath Misree – Appellant
Versus
Russick Das Bairagy – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Richard Garth, C.J. - The plaintiff describing herself as "elder sister and guardian of the minors Preonath Misree and Uma Churn Misree," brought this suit to recover possession of certain land, the property of the minors, from which she, while acting as their guardian and in possession on their account, had been dispossessed.

2. The defendants, apart from the merits of the case, contended that Preonath Misree had attained majority, and further, that, even if he and his brother were minors, the plaintiff had no right to sue on their behalf, as she held no certificate under Act XL of 1858, and had no permission from the Court to bring the suit.

3. It certainly does not appear that any permission, such as that contemplated by Section 3, Act XL of 1858, was asked for or given; but the Munsif, in disposing of the latter objection, says in his judgment: "Managers of small properties are competent to bring cases without obtaining a certificate; * * * * thus the plaintiff is in no way debarred."

4. On the other point he held that Preonath's age was 17 or 18, and that as 21 was the age of majority, he was still a minor.

5. The same objections were raised in appeal, and have again been

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top