TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal granted, consent decree voided, execution restrained, mortgage suit restored, no costs awarded.</h1> <h3>Kumar Ganganand Singh and Ors. Versus Maharaja Sir Rameshwar Singh Bahadur and Ors.</h3> The court allowed the appeal of Ganganand, declaring the consent decree void as against him and restraining the Maharaja from executing the decree against ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the consent decree dated 17th December 1918.2. Representation of minors in the mortgage suit.3. Allegations of fraud and conspiracy.4. Jurisdiction and the applicability of res judicata.5. Estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation.6. Competence of guardians ad litem.7. Maintainability of the suit to set aside the consent decree.8. Procedural aspects related to the final decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Consent DecreeThe plaintiffs sought a declaration that the consent decree dated 17th December 1918 was fraudulent, void, and inoperative. The primary contention was that Ganganand, one of the plaintiffs, was a minor at the time of the decree and was not properly represented by a guardian ad litem. The court found that Ganganand was indeed a minor under the Indian Majority Act and that the decree was void as against him.2. Representation of Minors in the Mortgage SuitThe court examined whether the minors were properly represented in the mortgage suit. It was found that Ganganand was not adequately represented as he was declared an adult without proper notice and representation. The court held that the order declaring Ganganand an adult was not binding on him as it was passed ex parte and without notice to him.3. Allegations of Fraud and ConspiracyThe plaintiffs alleged that the Maharaja and Kumar Kalikanand entered into a fraudulent conspiracy to defeat the interests of the minors. The court found no evidence of such a conspiracy, stating that Kalikanand had no adverse interests against the minors and that the allegations of secret bargains were unfounded.4. Jurisdiction and Applicability of Res JudicataThe court addressed whether the order declaring Ganganand an adult operated as res judicata. It was held that Ganganand was not bound by the order as he was not a party to it. The court emphasized that an order passed without proper notice to a minor cannot operate as res judicata.5. Estoppel and Fraudulent MisrepresentationThe court examined whether Ganganand was estopped from disputing the validity of the consent decree due to alleged fraudulent misrepresentation of his age. It was found that there was no express representation by Ganganand that he was of age, and thus, no fraudulent misrepresentation was established. The court ruled that Ganganand was entitled to be relieved from the consent decree.6. Competence of Guardians ad LitemThe court scrutinized the actions of the guardians ad litem and found that they acted with a lack of responsibility. However, it was determined that the negligence of the guardians ad litem did not constitute grounds to set aside the consent decree for the other plaintiffs, as Kalikanand adequately represented the interests of the joint family.7. Maintainability of the Suit to Set Aside the Consent DecreeThe court held that a suit to set aside a consent decree on grounds of fraud and collusion is maintainable. It was noted that the plaintiffs were entitled to bring a separate suit to challenge the decree, especially where the allegations involved fraud on the party rather than on the court.8. Procedural Aspects Related to Final Decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 5The court found that Ganganand was not a party to the proceedings under Order XXXIV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The final decree did not bind Ganganand as he was not served notice of these proceedings. The court ruled that the consent decree was neither in form nor in substance a preliminary decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 4, and thus, the final decree could be ignored by Ganganand.Conclusion:The court allowed the appeal of Ganganand, declaring the consent decree void as against him and restraining the Maharaja from executing the decree against Ganganand's interests. The mortgage suit was to be restored and proceeded with in accordance with the law, ensuring no further delays. The court made no order for costs either in the High Court or the lower court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
