Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Subba Reddi and Anr.
Versus
Kotamma and Ors.
Decided On : 17.08.1904
Compromise - Guardian's Arrangement - The court found that the plaintiffs were bound by the compromise made by the guardian in the best interests of the minors, and upheld the arrangement even though the plaintiffs were later found to be entitled to the whole property. The court emphasized that when a compromise is based on certain facts, parties cannot later dispute the real state of things.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs were found to be bound by the compromise made by the guardian in the best interests of the minors, even though they were later found to be entitled to the whole property.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the arrangement made by the guardian and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that parties cannot dispute the real state of things after a compromise is made based on certain facts.
Issues: The ownership of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, and the validity of the compromise made by the guardian.
Ratio Decidendi: When a compromise is based on certain facts, parties cannot later dispute the real state of things.
Final Decision: The second appeal failed and was dismissed with costs.
1. We must take it that the finding of both the Courts below was that the plaintiffs were bound by the arrangement made by the then guardian, as it was in compromise of a doubtful right. There is no reason for importing any malafides to the guardian, who evidently acted in the best interests of the minors by getting for them 4 acres out of the estate which had been in the possession of the 1st defendant for over 12 years. It is contended that now it is found the plaintiffs were in fact entitled to the whole property the 7 acres of which the 1st defendant continued in possession must in the absence of a registered instrument conveying the land to her be delivered to the plaintiffs. This assumes that the plaintiffs ownership was never in doubt. When a state of facts is accepted as the basis of a compromise, parties cannot be afterwards allowed to say the real state of things was otherwise. Having found in favour of the compromise, it was unnecessary to decide in this case as to the ownership of the plaintiffs or the 1st defendant. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
AI
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
