Rashid-Un-Nisa vs Muhammad Ismail Khan And Ors. on 30 July, 1909
The case before us is covered completely by the decision of the Judicial Committee in Rashid-un-nisa v. Muhammad Ismail Khan 3 Ind. Cas. 861 : 36 I.A. 168 : 31 A. 572 : 13 C.W.N. 1182 (P.C.) : 10 C.L.J. 318 : 6 A.L.J. 822 : 11 Bom. L.R. 1225 : 6 M.L.T. 279. There the lunatic was never a party to the suit in the proper sense of the term; his wife, though appointed the manager of his estate under Act XXXV of 1858, was herself a minor, and was thus disqualified to act as his next friend in the suit. The lunatic was, in the words of Sir Andrew Scoble, never a party to the suit in the proper sense of the term and, consequently, the question now raised is not a question which arises between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, that is to say, between parties who have been properly made parties in accordance with the provisions of the Code. The appellant has contended that this view is likely to lead to lamentable results, that if the decree is allowed to be executed, the purchaser will acquire no title, and that much mischievous litigation will, as a consequence, follow. We appreciate the force of this contention.