Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.54 seconds)
Narayani Amma vs Bhaskaran Pillai And Ors. on 23 May, 1968 cites

Ramchandar Singh And Anr. vs B. Gopi Krishna Dass And Ors. on 22 February, 1957

14. Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code has been enacted for the protection of the interest of minors. (Vide the decision of the High Court of Patna in Ramchandar Singh v. Gopi Krishna, AIR 1957 Pat 260 and of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Tulsiram v. Shyamlal, AIR 1960 Madh Pra 73). It would be an abuse of the statutory protection, if a person who has no Interest in the minor and who is not concerned with his benefit, is permitted to institute suits in the name of the minor for achieving that person's own object, or serving the interest of others. The law allows two occasions for a minor to institute an action. One is during the period of his minority? and the other after he has attained majority. In the first case, the action has to be instituted by a next friend. The obvious advantage in allowing a minor to institute a suit during his minority is that much of the evidence, which would be available if the action were instituted soon after the cause of action arose, would be lost if he were to wait to institute it, after attaining majority. Failure to institute the action during the minority does not bar the remedy. He can institute the action after attaining majority within the period allowed by the law of limitation.
Patna High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Santosh Kumari Lalchand Mehra vs Chimanlal Munilal Kapur on 4 August, 1949

I have no doubt that this is not the correct legal position. In my view, if the competency of a next friend is questioned, it is the duty of the Court to enquire whether the action has been instituted by him bona fide and for the benefit of the minor. If the Court finds that it is not so, the action must be dismissed on that sole ground. If the suit instituted by a next friend is against the minor's own parents, very strong grounds should be made out for permitting him to maintain the suit. Normally, nobody can have better interests in the children than their own parents. The following observations, contained in the judgment of Bhagwati J. in Santosh Kumari v. Chimanlal AIR 1950 Bom 307 support my view. The learned Judge said:
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Tulsiram vs Shyamlal Ganpatlal And Anr. on 30 September, 1959

14. Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code has been enacted for the protection of the interest of minors. (Vide the decision of the High Court of Patna in Ramchandar Singh v. Gopi Krishna, AIR 1957 Pat 260 and of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Tulsiram v. Shyamlal, AIR 1960 Madh Pra 73). It would be an abuse of the statutory protection, if a person who has no Interest in the minor and who is not concerned with his benefit, is permitted to institute suits in the name of the minor for achieving that person's own object, or serving the interest of others. The law allows two occasions for a minor to institute an action. One is during the period of his minority? and the other after he has attained majority. In the first case, the action has to be instituted by a next friend. The obvious advantage in allowing a minor to institute a suit during his minority is that much of the evidence, which would be available if the action were instituted soon after the cause of action arose, would be lost if he were to wait to institute it, after attaining majority. Failure to institute the action during the minority does not bar the remedy. He can institute the action after attaining majority within the period allowed by the law of limitation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ratanchand Dhulaji vs Jasraj Kasturchand on 3 October, 1939

At the same time, the institution of a suit by a next friend involves the minor in serious consequences. After he attains majority, he has to elect whether the suit is to be continued or not If he elects to abandon the suit, he has to pay all the costs incurred by the next friend, as well as the costs of the opposite party, unless he satisfies the Court that the institution of the suit by the next friend was unreasonable or improper. (Vide the decisions of the High Court of Madras in Chikkanna Chetty v. Dhanakoti Narayana Chettiar, AIR 1934 Mad 73 and of the High Court of Bombay in Ratanchand v. Jasraj, AIR 1940 Bom 58). If the suit happens to be decided against him during his minority, the decree is binding on him, irrespective of the question of negligence or inaction on the part of the next friend in prosecuting it. The minor can have the decree set aside only by another suit, in which he has to prove gross negligence of the next friend in the conduct of the earlier suit.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Chikkanna Chetty And Anr. vs Dhanakoti Narayana Chettiar And Anr. on 27 April, 1933

At the same time, the institution of a suit by a next friend involves the minor in serious consequences. After he attains majority, he has to elect whether the suit is to be continued or not If he elects to abandon the suit, he has to pay all the costs incurred by the next friend, as well as the costs of the opposite party, unless he satisfies the Court that the institution of the suit by the next friend was unreasonable or improper. (Vide the decisions of the High Court of Madras in Chikkanna Chetty v. Dhanakoti Narayana Chettiar, AIR 1934 Mad 73 and of the High Court of Bombay in Ratanchand v. Jasraj, AIR 1940 Bom 58). If the suit happens to be decided against him during his minority, the decree is binding on him, irrespective of the question of negligence or inaction on the part of the next friend in prosecuting it. The minor can have the decree set aside only by another suit, in which he has to prove gross negligence of the next friend in the conduct of the earlier suit.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1