MADDURI VENKATA SOMESWARA RAO ALIAS VENKATA SUBBANNA, MINOR BY GUARDIAN AND NATURAL FATHER, KUMARASWAMI SASTRI Vs. PULAVARTY LAKSHMANASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the adoptive mother of a minor executed in 1918, though the exact date is not given, a promissory note purporting to act as his guardian and to execute it on his behalf. A suit was brought, O.S. No. 348 of 1921, on the promissory note and the plaintiff applied to have the adoptive mother appointed as the guardian-ad-litem of the minor, notwithstanding the fact that she was the executant of the promissory note; and she was so appointed. She raised no defence to the suit and an ex parte decree was passed; before the decree was passed the natural father had been put in as guardian of the minor and no steps were taken to inform the Court of the existence of the natural father as guardian. But no attempt appears to have been made to substitute him for the adoptive mother as guardian-ad-litem in the suit, and he was not so substituted. In these circumstances, the learned Judges propounded three questions for the opinion of a Full Bench.

(2.) The first is this: Whether the appointment of a person who executed a document or enters into a transaction as the guardian-ad-litem of a minor is valid in a suit on the document or transaction?

(3.) As framed this is almost meaningless; what appears to be meant is this : When a person has executed a document or entered into a transaction on behalf of a minor as his guardian, can that same person be validly appointed guardian-ad-litem of the minor in a suit brought against him on the document or transaction in question?