Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Appeal by Minor Defendants in Partition Suit Under Order 32 Rule 7 CPC. Consent Preliminary Decree Against Minors Without Court Leave Held Voidable, Not Nullity, and Cannot Be Challenged in Final Decree Appeal Under Section 97 CPC.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal arose from a partition suit filed by Baij Nath against his coparceners. After remand from the Lahore High Court which set aside an earlier consent preliminary decree for non-joinder, the parties again consented to a preliminary decree on October 15, 1943. This decree specified shares and appointed Chuni Lal as Commissioner. The minor appellants, Jai Pal and Chandar Mohan, were represented by their mother Kaushalya Devi as guardian ad litem. No leave of court was obtained for the compromise as required by Order 32 Rule 7(1) CPC. The Commissioner submitted reports, and a final decree was drawn on June 21, 1944. The minors appealed to the Punjab High Court, arguing the preliminary decree was invalid for non-compliance with Order 32 Rule 7. The High Court held that Section 97 CPC precluded the challenge in an appeal against the final decree and dismissed the appeal on August 28, 1950. The minors then appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the consent decree was void or voidable and whether Section 97 barred the challenge. The appellants argued that failure to comply with Order 32 Rule 7(1) made the agreement and decree void, so Section 97 had no application. They relied on Chhabba Lal v. Kallu Lal. The respondents contended the decree was merely voidable at the minor's instance and Section 97 prohibited the challenge at that stage. The Court interpreted Order 32 Rule 7(2) as meaning that a compromise without leave is voidable only at the instance of the minor against the major parties, not at the instance of any other party; it is not void and does not affect the court's jurisdiction. The Court distinguished the Privy Council decision in Chhabba Lal, holding that observation did not decide the interpretation of Order 32 Rule 7(2). It also held that the object of Section 97 would be frustrated if it were limited to challenges of factual correctness and not legal validity. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's decision.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Compromise by Next Friend or Guardian - Order 32 Rule 7(1),(2) CPC - Effect of Non-Compliance - A consent preliminary decree passed without leave of court is voidable only at the instance of the minor, not void; failure to comply does not affect court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the agreement could be avoided by the minor against major parties but not by major parties against the minor, and the non-observance did not render the decree a nullity.

B) Civil Procedure - Appeal Against Final Decree - Section 97 CPC - Bar to Challenge Preliminary Decree - A preliminary decree cannot be challenged in an appeal against the final decree, including challenges to its legal validity. The Court held that Section 97 barred the minor appellants from raising the invalidity of the consent preliminary decree in their appeal against the final decree, as the remedy was to appeal against the preliminary decree itself or seek review/regular suit.

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a preliminary decree passed on consent by a guardian without leave of court under Order 32 Rule 7(1) CPC is void or voidable, and whether it can be challenged in an appeal against the final decree in view of Section 97 CPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court was correct in holding that Section 97 CPC precluded the appellants from challenging the preliminary decree in an appeal against the final decree. It held that non-compliance with Order 32 Rule 7(1) made the consent decree voidable only at the instance of the minor, not void, and that the minor's remedy was by way of an appeal against the preliminary decree, regular suit, or review, not by raising it in the final decree appeal.

Law Points

  • Order 32 Rule 7(2) CPC makes a compromise without leave voidable at the minor's instance only
  • not void
  • Section 97 CPC bars challenge to preliminary decree in appeal against final decree
  • non-compliance with Order 32 Rule 7(1) does not affect court's jurisdiction
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1961 LawText (SC) (02) 10

Civil Appeal No. 216 of 1956

1961-02-09

P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo

1961 AIR 790, 1961 SCR (3) 769

L.K. Jha, K. P. Bhandari, Harbans Singh, Darya Datt Chawla

Kaushalya Devi and Others

Baijnath Sayal and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal by special leave challenging the High Court's dismissal of an appeal against a final decree in a partition suit, on the ground that the preliminary decree was invalid for non-compliance with Order 32 Rule 7 CPC.

Remedy Sought

The appellants, minor defendants through their guardian, sought to set aside the preliminary decree and final decree by challenging the preliminary decree's validity in the appeal against the final decree.

Filing Reason

The guardian ad litem of the minor appellants consented to a preliminary decree and appointment of a commissioner without obtaining the leave of the court as required by Order 32 Rule 7(1) CPC, and the appellants alleged this rendered the decree void and challengeable despite Section 97 CPC.

Previous Decisions

The trial court passed a preliminary decree on October 15, 1943, after remand from the Lahore High Court which set aside an earlier consent decree for non-joinder; the final decree was passed on June 21, 1944; the Punjab High Court dismissed the appeal on August 28, 1950, holding Section 97 CPC precluded the challenge to the preliminary decree.

Issues

Whether non-compliance with Order 32 Rule 7(1) CPC renders a consent preliminary decree against a minor void or voidable. Whether Section 97 CPC bars a challenge to the validity of a preliminary decree in an appeal against the final decree.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that failure to comply with Order 32 Rule 7(1) made the agreement and preliminary decree void, so Section 97 was no bar; relied on Chhabba Lal v. Kallu Lal. Respondents argued that the decree was merely voidable at the instance of the minor and that Section 97 precluded the challenge in appeal against the final decree.

Ratio Decidendi

Order 32 Rule 7(2) CPC means that an agreement or compromise entered into on behalf of a minor without leave of court is voidable only at the instance of the minor against the other parties, not at the instance of any major party; it is not void and does not render the decree a nullity. Section 97 CPC bars challenging a preliminary decree in an appeal against the final decree, including challenges to its legal validity, not just factual correctness.

Judgment Excerpts

What the rule really means is that the impugned agreement can be avoided by the minor against the parties who are major, and that it cannot be avoided by the parties who are major against the minor. It is voidable and not void. The non-observance of the condition laid down by r. 1 does not make the agreement or decree void for it does not affect the jurisdiction of the court at all. The object s. 97 of the Code was intended to achieve would be wholly frustrated if it were to be held that the section merely prohibited a challenge to the factual correctness of the decree and not its legal validity.

Procedural History

Suit instituted on June 11, 1941; first preliminary decree passed by consent on October 30, 1941, set aside by Lahore High Court because all parties had not joined; after remand, second preliminary decree passed by consent on October 15, 1943, specifying shares and appointing defendant 6 as Commissioner; Commissioner submitted interim report on November 19, 1943, and final report on November 29, 1943; final decree drawn on June 21, 1944; appeal to Punjab High Court dismissed on August 28, 1950; appeal by special leave to Supreme Court decided on February 9, 1961.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908): Section 97, Order 32 Rule 7(1), Order 32 Rule 7(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka hears petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator in joint development dispute after earlier award rejected specific performance. The court considers whether the cla...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Due to Lack of Medical Evidence and Doubtful Testimony. Conviction under Section 376 IPC set aside as prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.