( 1 ) A question of law arises in this case which it seems necessary to refer to a Full Bench. A similar question arose in the case of Mariam v. Amna, 1936 ALL. L. J 1333 and the matter was referred to a Full Bench and the Full Bench gave an answer. Subsequently, a similar point of law arose in the Privy Council case of Ghhabba Lal v. Kallu Lal. 1946 ALL. L J 254 and certain observations contained in the judgment of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee seem to throw doubt as to the correctness of the answer given by the Full Bench in Mariams case.

( 2 ) WE, therefore, direct that this case be laid before the Honble the Chief Justice for the constitution of a Full Bench for the decision of the following questions :

(1) Does the omission by the next friend of a minor party to a suit to obtain the leave of the court as required by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of Order 32 Civil P. C. to enter into an agreement to refer the case to arbitration render the order of reference and the award void or only voidable at the option of the minor ? (2) In case such an order of reference and the award are only voidable at the option of the minor, is it necessary for the minor to file a fuit in order to avoid them within a certain period of limitation ? If so, what Article of the Indian Limitation Act would govern such a suit ? opinion of the Full Bench sapru J.

( 3 ) TWO questions have been referred to this Full Bench by a Bench of this Court. They are as follows :

1. Does the omission by the next friend of a minor party to a suit to obtain the leave of the Court as required by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of Order 32, Civil P. C. to enter into an agreement to refer the case to arbitration render the order of reference and the award void or only voidable at the option of the minor ? 2. In case such an order of reference and the award are only voidable at the option of the minor, is it necessary for the minor to file a suit in order to avoid them within a certain period of limitation ? If so, what Article of the Indian Limitation Act would govern such a suit ? the opinion of the Bench which made the reference was that certain observations contained in the judgment of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the Privy Council case of Ghhabba lal v. Eallu Lal, 1946 A. L. J. 254 (P. c.) were somewhat irreconcilable with the answer given by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mariam Bibi v. Amna Bibi, I. L. R. (1937) ALL. 317. In order to answer this question satisfactorily it may be convenient to give a few facts relating to this case.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff Birbhan claims to be the adopted son of Lala Earn, whose father was Kalyan Das kalyan Das had two sons, namely, the plaintiffs adoptive father Lala Ram and Munni Lal, After lala Rams death his wife, St Bitto, adopted the plaintiff and thereafter a suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff who was a minor by his mother who was acting as his next friend in 1929. That suit was numbered as suit No. 12 of 1929 and was for a partition of the family property. In this suit there was a reference to arbitration by the parties. It may be mentioned that this reference was made without compliance with the provisions of Order. 32, Rule 7 (l), Civil P. C. that is to say, without the leave of the Court. The arbitrator gave his award on 29-6 1929 and the award was made a rule of the Court on 18-7-1929.

( 5 ) THE suit out of which the present appeal, which is pending before a Bench, arises was filed on 14-11-1941 by the plaintiff who is not sure as to whether he is a minor or a major, for partition of the family property. It is under these circumstances that the two questions have arisen.

( 6 ) THE first question which the Bench referring this case has invited us to answer is whether the decree of 18-7-1929 is, in all the circumstances of this case, a nullity or not. On this point our attention has been invited to the provisions of Order. 32, Rule 7 of the Code which we quote below :

"