CHIKKALINGAIAH Vs. ANNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No. 45/1971 on the file of the Civil Judge, Mandya. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows : The plaintiff is the son of one Kempaiah. The 1st defendant is the brother of Kempaiah and the 2nd defendant is plaintiff's mother. During the minority of the plaintiff, Boramma, the 2nd defendant, filed a suit as next friend of the present plaintiff, in C.S. No. 651/1950-51 on the file of the Munsiff, Mandya. The said suit ended in a compromise. Since the minor's interest was involved, the Court had to apply its mind to satisfy itself that the compromise entered into was beneficial to the minor. Accordingly, the learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff in the suit filed a certificate as requited under the provisions of Order 32 of the C P.C. certifying that the compromise was for the interest and benefit of the minor. The Court applying its mind came to the conclusion that the compromise arrived at was in the interest of the minor. Accordingly, the Court permitted the suit to be compromised.

(2.) The compromise decree is produced as Exhibit-P5 and the compromise petition as Exhibit-P6. It is seen from Exhibit P5 that the plaintiff had been allotted 1 /5th share in each of the items enumerated in Exhibit-PS, which is the share to which the plaintiff is legally entitled to.

(3.) The earlier suit having thus ended in a compromise, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff long after attaining majority alleging that the compromise arrived at was fraudulent and therefore it is liable to be set aside and the partilion is liable to be reopened. It is alleged that at the time of the compromise the plaintiff's next friend did not teke into account the market value of the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiff's next friend was not aware of the existence of the 5th item of the plaint schedule properties and therefore had not included it in the plaint. But still the plaintiff's next friend (mother) agreed to the terms of the compromise. It is contended that compromise decree will not bind the present plaintiff and is liable to be set aside.