NIRMAL CHANDRA RAY Vs. KHANDU GHOSE
LAWS(CAL)-1963-12-3
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 16,1963

NIRMAL CHANDRA RAY Appellant
VERSUS
KHANDU GHOSE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MUSAMMAT BIBI WALIAN V. BANKA BEHARI PERSHAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MUSAMMAT RASHID-UN-NISSA V. MAHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN [REFERRED TO]
BANESWAR PRAMANIK V. TARAPADA BHATTACHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
PURNA CHANDRA KUNWAR V. BEJOY CHAND MAHATAB [REFERRED TO]
RADHASHYAM DASS V. RANGA SUNDARI DASSI [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA CHANDRA ROY V. JOGENDRA NARAYANH ROY [REFERRED TO]
RAGHU NATH BARAL V. BHOLA NATH ROY CHOWDHURY [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR V. LAKHAN [REFERRED TO]
CHANDI V. TARACHAND [REFERRED TO]
SATISH V. HASHEM [REFERRED TO]
PANDE SATDEO V. RAMAVAN [REFERRED TO]
ANNADA PRASAD GHOSE V. UPENDRA NATH DEY SARKAR [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA KANTA PAL V. SUDHIR CHANDRA ROY CHOWDHURY [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND PRASAD V. SANTI SWARUP [REFERRED TO]
VASIREDDI V. LAKSHMINARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
INDER PAL SINGH VS. SARNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR PRASAD VS. RAM CHANDRA SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
MAHASAI PARBHU DAYAL VS. MAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
M CHIMPRAMMA VS. P SUBRAHMANYAM [REFERRED TO]
KARUPPA GOUNDAN VS. KOMARASWAMI GOUNDER [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN GANGADHARAN VS. RAMAN NARAYANAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDAR SINGH VS. B GOPI KRISHNA DASS [REFERRED TO]
JAGADISH CHANDRA DE VS. HARIHAR DE [REFERRED TO]
MT SIRAJ FATIMA VS. MAHMOOD ALI [REFERRED TO]
MADHUSUDAN RAY VS. JOGENDRA KAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SHIV BARAN SINGH VS. BOARD OF REVENUE U P AT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-1992-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
MUSHTAQ AHMAD MASHKI VS. MOHD SHAFI BHAT [LAWS(J&K)-1982-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
PATRI SEETHARAMA RAO VS. KASTUFI VIJNANA BHASKARAM [LAWS(APH)-1990-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
SANKAR PRASAD KHAN VS. USHABALA DASI [LAWS(CAL)-1978-4-55] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIK SINGH VS. KARNAIL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1974-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAMACHANDRA PD SINGH VS. RAMPUNIT SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1967-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
MANMATHA NATH MAITY VS. PROVABATI ROY [LAWS(CAL)-1982-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
JOHRI VS. MAHILA DRAUPATI ALIAS DROPADI [LAWS(MPH)-1990-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
CHATER BHUJ GOEL VS. GURPREET SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1983-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
GURPREET SINGH VS. CHATTERBHUJ GOEL [LAWS(P&H)-1991-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
AMIR BALA VS. SWARAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2006-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
SUPDABAI BADRINARAYAN JOSHI VS. SUBHASH KASHINATH SHRAWAK [LAWS(BOM)-1973-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
VIRAT PAL AND ORS. VS. MAM RAJ AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2010-11-382] [REFERRED TO]
JUDHISTIR DAS VS. EKAMRA CHAUDHURY AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-1971-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
HARINDER SINGH AND OTHERS VS. SHAMSHER SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2012-9-183] [REFERRED TO]
SRI NITESH GHOSH & ORS VS. PATIYA DEVI AGARWAL & ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
NITESH GHOSH VS. PATIYA DEVI AGARWAL [LAWS(GAU)-2017-12-57] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

D.Basu, J. - (1.)sitting singly, referred this Second Appeal to the Division Bench for disposal since, in his Lordships's opinion, there was a conflict of authorities upon the only question of law which called for his determination in this Appeal.
(2.)The Second Appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Respondent, who are minors, for a declaration that the ex parte decree for rent obtained by the Appellants against them and their co-sharers, in R.S. No. 2006 of 1944, was not binding upon the Respondents inasmuch as the Respondents were, in that suit, impleaded as represented not by their mother who was their natural guardian, but by their brother, Gobinda alias Gobardhan, who was defendant No. 12 in the suit. It is now established by the findings of the Courts below that there was no adverse interest of defendant No. 12 against the minor defendants, though he did not contest the suit and also that the decree was not tainted by any fraud on the part of the Appellants or of defendant No. 12.
(3.)The question of law which arises is whether the minors were, in the above circumstances, properly represented by their brother who was not their natural guardian, so as to make the decree in the suit binding upon the minors. The learned Munsif relied upon the doctrine of 'effective' or 'substantial' representation, answered this question in the affirmative, and dismissed the instant suit for declaration. This decision has been reversed by the lower Appellate Court, holding that there was no representation under the law, by the brother, and in this view, the suit brought by the Respondents has been decreed. The Appellants having come up on second appeal, N. K. Sen, J., thought that there was a difference of judicial opinion on the aforesaid question, and, hence, referred the appeal to the Division Bench for disposal.


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