Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2003 passed in O.S. No.225/2002 (old No.76/1994) by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Harihar. The appellants, who were defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit, are minors represented by their natural guardian mother, Smt. Ratnavva. The respondent/plaintiff, Jyothi Jagadeeshappa, had filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule properties, which include various agricultural lands. The trial court decreed the suit. The High Court noted that the minor defendants were represented by their mother as natural guardian, but the trial court had not appointed her as guardian ad litem as required under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC. The High Court held that this procedural irregularity vitiated the trial court's judgment and decree. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal after properly appointing a guardian for the minor defendants. The High Court directed the trial court to give an opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence if necessary and to dispose of the suit afresh in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Representation of Minors - Natural Guardian - The trial court decreed the suit for declaration and injunction against minor defendants who were represented by their mother as natural guardian. However, the court failed to appoint the mother as guardian ad litem in accordance with Order 32 Rule 3 CPC. The High Court held that the judgment and decree are not sustainable and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after proper appointment of guardian. (Paras 1-5) B) Property Law - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Title and Possession - The plaintiff sought declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural lands. The trial court decreed the suit. The High Court set aside the decree and remanded the matter for fresh disposal after ensuring proper representation of minor defendants. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction is sustainable when the minor defendants were represented by their mother as natural guardian, but the mother was not properly appointed as guardian ad litem?
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 14.08.2003 in O.S. No.225/2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Harihar, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal after properly appointing a guardian for the minor defendants. The trial court shall give an opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence if necessary and dispose of the suit afresh in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Order 41 Rule 1 CPC
- Section 96 CPC
- Representation of minors
- Natural guardian
- Suit for declaration and injunction
- Remand
