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

2018 Supreme(HP) 748

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Thakur Dass - Petitioner
Versus
Sukhdev & Others - Respondents
CMPMO No.388 of 2018
Decided on : 05-12-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Abhey Kaushal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr.Umesh Kanwar, Advocate.

A minor, upon attaining majority, has the right to file a separate written statement and defense which may not be in consonance with the earlier written statement filed by the guardian.

Headnote:

MINORITY - Civil Procedure - Section 151 of CPC, Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, Section 3 of The Majority Act, 1875, Article 60(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963, Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC - The court discussed the right of a minor, after attaining majority, to file an additional written statement without repudiating the averments made in the written statement filed on his/her behalf by his guardian. The court referred to various legal provisions and judgments to establish that a minor, upon attaining majority, has the right to file a separate written statement and defense which may not be in consonance with the earlier written statement filed by the guardian.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act seeking declaration of co-ownership and possession of suit land. Defendants No.2 and 3, who were minors at the time, sought permission to file separate written statement after attaining majority, which was allowed by the lower court. The plaintiff challenged this decision.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that defendants No.2 and 3, after attaining majority, had the right to file a separate written statement, as their interest was adverse to that of their guardian. The court upheld the lower court's decision to allow defendants No.2 and 3 to file separate written statements.

Issues: The main issue was whether a minor, after attaining majority, has the right to file an additional written statement without repudiating the averments made in the written statement filed on his/her behalf by his guardian.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a minor, upon attaining majority, has the right to file a separate written statement and defense which may not be in consonance with the earlier written statement filed by the guardian.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the impugned order allowing defendants No.2 and 3 to file separate written statements was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned order dated 11.01.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Court No.3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., whereby an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) having been filed by the respondents-defendants No.2 & 3 (hereinafter referred to as ‘defendants No.2 & 3’), seeking therein permission to file separate written statement came to be allowed, the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the impugned order referred hereinabove.

2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record, are that the plaintiff filed a suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are co-owners in joint possession in equal share qua the share of their father Shri Munshi Ram @ Munshi in the suit land as described in the plaint on the basis of registered Will dated 23.4.1997 executed by him. Plaintiff by way of aforesaid suit also sought declaration that if any other document purporting to be Will is produced by the defendants then same be declared illegal, wrong, null and void and result of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. Plaintiff further prayed that the defendants may be restrained from creating any charge, cutting the trees, changing the nature, alienating the land, raising any construction and getting the mutation sanctioned on the basis of the alleged Will dated 11.12.2009.

3. Aforesaid suit, having been filed by the plaintiff, came to be resisted by way of written statement, having been filed on behalf of defendants No.1 to 3 and 13, wherein defendant No.1, father of defendants No.2 and 3, who were minors at that time, admitted factum with regard to execution and registration of Will dated 23.4.1997. During the pendency of suit, referred hereinabove, defendants No.2 and 3 filed application under Section 151 CPC, seeking therein permission of Court to file their separate written statement. In the said application, defendants No.2 and 3 averred that in a suit having been filed by the plaintiff they were earlier being represented by their father, defendant No.1 Shri Sukh Dev, whose interest is adverse to their interest. They further averred in the application that after attaining the majority, they were summoned by Court to defend their case and when they engaged their counsel, it transpired that interest of defendant No.1 is with that of plaintiff, wherein he has admitted the claim of plaintiff which is against the interest of applicant. Defendants No.2 and 3 averred in the application that defendant No.1, whose interest is with the plaintiff, could not be the guardian of defendants No.2 and 3 and as such he has no right to file written statement on their behalf.

4. Plaintiff contested the aforesaid application, wherein it is stated that defendants No.2 and 3 are residing with their father defendant No.1 in joint house and as such it cannot be said that their interest is not protected by defendant No.1. Plaintiff in his reply stated that defendants No.2 and 3 are guided and misled by advise given to them for filing this application because it is clear that they have filed the application in league with father. Plaintiff further averred that defendants were aware regarding the subject matter of suit and as such application deserves to be rejected.

5. Learned Court below, on the basis of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, allowed the application and permitted defendants No.2 and 3 to file written statement on their own behalf. In the aforesaid background, the plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

7. Question which needs to be decided in the instant pro

































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 Back to top