Decided on February 26,1929



- (1.) This is an application to compromise this First Appeal No. 454 of 1926. All the parties to the original suit are, however, not before us. The parties to the appeal consist of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and defendants Nos. 2 and 11-16. Consequently we have not before us defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 10 and 17 to 20. We are, however, informed that owing to the course this litigation has taken, these latter defendants are not necessary for the purposes of the present appeal and the proposed compromise.
(2.) What we are asked to do is to sanction the compromise on behalf of the minors, viz., plaintiff No. 2 and defendants Nos. 14, 15 and 16, Their respective interests are in conflict, The litigation concerns the family property descending from one Murardas Rasikdas, who had four sons. The plaintiff s contention was that there was never any partition between these four sons of Murardas, In that contention, however, they were defeated in the Court below. They have now accepted that, decision, and it is on that basis that defendants Nos. 1 and 18 to 20, who arts the descendants of a son Goverdhandas, are not concerned with, at any rate, that portion of the appeal.
(3.) [His Lordship, after dealing with subsidiary points, proceeded:] Now I may turn to the application before us,, which is a petition presented by the appellants and respondents to this Court setting out what the parties have agreed to, and asking the Court to satisfy itself that the above compromise is for the benefit of the minors, and to pass a decree in the terms of a document submitted to the Court. We appreciate here that the minors in each case have adult relatives, who prima facie have the same interests as the minors, and that as the rival parties have agreed to this compromise, there are prima facie grounds for assuming that it is in the interests of the minors as well as of the adults on either side that this compromise should be effected.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.