Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Annada Prasad Alias Annoda Chandra ... vs Upendra Nath Dey Sircar And Maharaj ... on 5 August, 1921
This decision in Annada's case, 26 Cal WN 781: (AIR 1921 Cal 600) (ibid) has not been dissented from in this Court ever since.
Thekkamannengath Raman Alias Kochu ... vs Kakkasseri Pazhiyot Manakkal Karnavan ... on 8 January, 1915
40. We are not unmindful of the fact that in some other High Courts it has been held
e.g., Sriramulu Vasireddi v. P. Lakshminarayana AIR 1925 Mad 30 (FB); Raman v. Raman that the consent required by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 need not be express but may be implied from the circumstances of the case. We are, however, unable to subscribe to this view for several reasons:
The Indian Majority Act, 1875
Section 3 in Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 [Entire Act]
Priya Kanta Pal, Partner Of Firm Priya ... vs Sudhir Chandra Roy Chowdhury And Ors. on 10 February, 1939
So understood, the decision in Mt. Bibi's case, 30 Ind App 182 (PC) is not inconsistent with the
object of Order 32 of the Code, and in this sense it has been applied in cases of this Court, such as Priya Kanta v. Sudhir and, in many cases, by the other High Courts.
Govind Prasad And Anr. vs Shanti Swarup And Ors. on 22 March, 1935
30. The Allahabad decision in Gobind Prasad v. Shanti Swarup relied upon on behalf of the appellants does not help us because there was, in that case, a formal order of appointment of the father of the minor defendants as guardian-ad-litem but, notwithstanding such appointment by the Court, it was contended that the father was not a 'proper person', on the ground that the father being himself one of the executants of the mortgage-deed was not in a position to raise pleas in bar to the claim for foreclosure which might be good defence to the minors. The Court entered into the question whether the minors were in fact prejudiced by the appointment of the father and came to the conclusion that the father did not omit to take any valid plea and that the minors were not, in fact, prejudiced by such appointment, and so it was upheld. The substance of this decision is that even where the Court has duly appointed a guardian-ad-litem, it is open to the minor to challenge such appointment on the ground that the person appointed was not a 'proper person', but in such a case, the minor cannot succeed unless 'prejudice', in fact, is established.
Mahasai Parbhu Dayal vs Man Singh And Anr. on 21 December, 1961
31. In the case before us, on the other hand, there has been no representation at all of the minor defendants in the rent suit in question since the plaintiffs in that suit did not ask the Court to appoint a guardian-ad-litem and the Court did not consider any such proposal. Even in the Allahabad High Court it has been held that in the absence of appointment of a guardian-ad-litem for a minor defendant, the decree obtained against him becomes "void ab initio and a nullity" Inderpal v. Sarnam Singh approved in Prabhu Dayal v. Man Singh, . If it be a duty of the Court to decide who would be the proper person to be appointed as guardian-ad-litem for the minor, it is clear that the Court loses its jurisdiction to pass a decree against the minor where it has not considered that question at all.
Jagadish Chandra De And Ors. vs Harihar De on 22 November, 1923
38. B. The position is much more clear as regards the contravention of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4. This sub-rule has been uniformly held to be mandatory, so far as this Court is concerned, so that even where there is a formal order of appointment of a guardian-ad-litem by the Court, the order would be invalid if the consent of such person has not been obtained before the appointment: 26 Cal WN 781: (AIR 1921 Cal 600); Jagadish v. Harihar ; Satish v. Hashem . The same view has been taken by the Patna High Court in the case of (S) retired to earlier.