Case Note & Summary
The Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Mangesh, a minor, through his next friend Ambika Manik Mane, challenging the decision of a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2965/2011. The writ petition had challenged a compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat in Regular Civil Suit No. 114/2007, which was pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Parbhani. The suit was filed by respondent No. 1, Sanjeevani, seeking a declaration that she was the legally wedded wife of respondent No. 2, Amrutkumar. Respondent No. 3, Lata, was also claiming to be Amrutkumar's wife and had obtained a maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC for herself and her son Mangesh (the appellant). During the suit, Mangesh was added as defendant No. 3 on 20.3.2009, and his mother Lata was shown as his guardian. The matter was referred to Lok Adalat, where a compromise was recorded, and a decree was passed. The appellant contended that the compromise was not in his interest and that his mother Lata, who was also a defendant with a conflicting interest, could not act as his guardian. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the decree was valid. In appeal, the Division Bench examined the provisions of Order 32 Rule 7 CPC, which requires court permission for a compromise on behalf of a minor. The court found that Lata had an interest adverse to Mangesh, as she was also a defendant claiming to be Amrutkumar's wife, and thus could not represent him. The compromise decree was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The court also directed that a suitable guardian ad litem be appointed for the minor.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Minor Defendant - Guardian Ad Litem - Order 32 Rule 7 CPC - Where a minor defendant is represented by a guardian who has a conflict of interest, the compromise decree is voidable and liable to be set aside - The court held that the mother Lata, who was also a defendant in the suit, could not act as guardian of the minor Mangesh as her interest was adverse to his - The compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat was set aside as it was not in the interest of the minor (Paras 4-6). B) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Lok Adalat - Compromise Decree - Section 20 - A compromise decree passed by a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and is subject to challenge on grounds available under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court held that the decree was voidable due to non-compliance with Order 32 Rule 7 CPC (Para 5). C) Civil Procedure - Minor - Next Friend - Guardian - Order 32 Rule 4 - The court observed that the mother Lata, being a defendant with an interest adverse to the minor, could not be appointed as guardian ad litem without the court's permission - The decree was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat in Regular Civil Suit No. 114/2007 is valid and binding on the minor defendant Mangesh, when his mother Lata (who was also a defendant with conflicting interest) acted as his guardian without court appointment, and whether the decree is liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2965/2011 is set aside. The compromise decree passed by the Lok Adalat in Regular Civil Suit No. 114/2007 is set aside. The suit is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The trial court shall appoint a suitable guardian ad litem for the minor defendant Mangesh.
Law Points
- Compromise decree
- Lok Adalat settlement
- minor defendant
- guardian ad litem
- Order 32 Rule 7 CPC
- Section 20 Legal Services Authorities Act
- 1987
- voidable decree
- next friend
- conflict of interest
