HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Ray, C. J.
SANKAR PATRA - Appellant
Versus
DEBIDAYAL SINGH - Respondent
A. F. A. D. 557 Of 1948
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 08, 1950
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER 32, RULE 3 - APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR MINOR DEFENDANT - SERVICE OF NOTICE ON NATURAL GUARDIAN - NECESSITY - ADVERSE INTEREST OF PROPOSED GUARDIAN - DUTY OF COURT TO ENSURE PROPER REPRESENTATION OF MINOR - SETTING ASIDE OF EX PARTE DECREE AND SALE - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a minor, filed a suit to set aside an ex parte decree and sale held thereunder on the grounds that he was not properly represented by his guardian ad litem in the original suit. The minor's mother, his natural guardian, was not served with notice of the appointment of the guardian ad litem, and the proposed guardian had an adverse interest to the minor. The minor also argued that the sale was conducted in violation of the Money Lenders Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the minor was not duly represented in the original suit and that there was gross negligence on the part of the guardian ad litem. The court also found that the sale was conducted in violation of the Money Lenders Act and that there was collusion between the decree-holder and the minor's brother to save as much of the property as possible for their own sake.
Issues: 1. Whether the minor was duly represented in the original suit. 2. Whether there was gross negligence on the part of the guardian ad litem. 3. Whether the sale was conducted in violation of the Money Lenders Act. 4. Whether there was collusion between the decree-holder and the minor's brother.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Order 32, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, notice of the appointment of a guardian ad litem for a minor defendant must be served on the minor's natural guardian. 2. A guardian ad litem cannot be appointed if he has an adverse interest to the minor. 3. The court has a duty to ensure that a minor is properly represented in a lawsuit. 4. An ex parte decree and sale can be set aside if the minor was not properly represented in the original suit.
Final Decision: The court set aside the ex parte decree and sale to the extent of the minor's share in the property. The sale with regard to the rest of the properties, which represented the interest of the minor's brother, was upheld. The court also ordered that each party bear its own costs.
RAY, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS is a plff's. second appeal in a suit for setting aside an ex parte decree and the sale held thereunder on circumstances stated briefly herein below:
( 2 ) THE plff. is one of the two sons of Fanchu Patra. Panchu's other son is deft. 2. After the death of Panchu while the plff. and deft. 2 were living jointly (as concurrently found by the Courts below) on 2-3-1944, deft. 2 borrowed a sum of Rs. 200/- from deft. 1. The latter instituted a S. C. C. Suit No. 130 of 1945, in the Court, of the 1st Additional Munsiff of Cuttack against the plff. and deft. 2. In the S. C. C. suit plff. was deft. 2 and deft. 2 of this suit was deft. 1. The plff. was minor then and is a minor even now; in the present suit he has been represented by his mother as next friend. Deft. 2 is his step brother being panchu's son by his predeceased wife. As required under O. 32, R. 3, it was necessary that the procedure for service of notice about the proposed guardian of the minor should have been followed in full but allegedly it was admitted that no notice was taken to the mother, the minor's natural guardian, but notice had been taken to the minor proposing deft. 1 of the suit, his elder brother, to be his guardian. The minor, however, was not living with him and as the peon's report says he was living in his maternal uncle's house. This defect, in the service report, was overlooked and an order was recorded that the summons and notice had been duly served. On the date fixed for appearance of the deft. 1, the proposed guardian appeared and filed a petition praying for adjournment in order to enable him to collect papers for the purpose of enabling him to file written statement. In that petition he expressed his willingness to act as his younger brother's guardian 'ad litem. ' Since after that he did not make any further appearance in the suit which was heard ex parte. The decree was put into execution and at the stage of execution an outsider claiming to be the purchaser of a part of the family property appertaining to the share of deft. 2 (of that suit) filed a claim case and succeeded. The rest of the property including homestead and the house of the family have all been sold for a consideration of Rs. 100/ -. It is this sale by which the plff. is aggrieved and wants to have it set aside. It may be noted here that while the homestead was under sale deft. 2 had filed an application under Section 60, C. P. C. , for its release on the ground that it was agriculturist homestead. This petition met with failure.
( 3 ) I must observe, at the outset, that none of the Courts below have been careful enough to forcuss their attention on the essential points at issue and on the relevant evidence appearing on record. Both the Courts below have assumed that deft. I has been rightly appointed as a guardian by the Court. Besides that there is no formal order of appointment, the following defects are very prominent in the record: (i) No notice was issued to the natural guardian, namely, the mother. The Courts below are probably under the impression that in a case of Mitakshara joint family it is the Karta of the family who becomes the natural guardian of the minor. Assume that their labouring under that impression is wholly wrong, I will, in this respect, refer to paras. 230 and 231 of mayne's Hindu Law, Edn, 10, edited by S. Srinivas Iyengar. In para. 230, it is said that even though under the Guardians and Wards Act no guardian of the property of a minor can be appointed where the minor is a member of an undivided Mitakshara joint family, if the minor is without natural guardian of his person, notwithstanding the Karta, a guardian of the person can be appointed by the Court. The passage reads:
"a guardian of the person of a minor member of an undivided mitakshara family may however be appointed by the Court. " the next para, deals with natural guardianship, and it says: "of these, the father, and next to him the mother, is his natural guardian; an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.