Nagaiah vs Chowdamma (Dead) By Lrs.

3. The   trial   Court   dismissed   the   suit   on   merits.     The   first Appellate Court allowed the Regular Appeal No. 90 of 2003 filed by the unsuccessful   plaintiffs   and   decreed   the   suit.     Aggrieved   by   the judgment   of   the   first   appellate   Court,   the   unsuccessful   defendant no.2­   Chowdamma/purchaser   of   the   property   filed   Regular   Second Appeal before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. 2 By   the   impugned   judgment,   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the appeal and dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff no.1 being the elder brother could not act as the guardian of plaintiff no.2   during   the   life­time   of   Kempaiah,   the   father   of   the   plaintiffs (defendant no.1), inasmuch as plaintiff no.1/appellant no.1 was not appointed as a guardian of the minor plaintiff no. 2 by any competent Court.  Since the first defendant is the father of plaintiff no.2, he was the natural guardian and hence he could only represent plaintiff no.2 and none else.

A   person   appointed   as   guardian   under   this   sub­rule, shall,   unless   his   appointment   is   terminated   by retirement or removal by order of Court on application made   for   the   purpose   or   by   his   death,   continue throughout all proceedings in the suit or arising out of the   suit   including   proceedings   in   any   appeal   or   in revision and  any  proceedings in execution of a decree and the service of any process in any such proceeding on the said guardian if duly made shall be deemed to be good service for the purposes of such proceedings. (4) An order for the appointment of a guardian for the suit may be obtained upon an application in the name and   on   behalf   of   the   minor   or   by   the   plaintiff.   The application   where   it   is   by   the   plaintiff   shall   whenever necessary set forth in the order of their suitability a list of   persons   who   are competent  and qualified  to  act as guardian for the suit for the minor defendant. (5) The application referred to in the last preceding sub­ rule whether made by the plaintiff or on behalf of the minor   defendant   shall   be   supported   by   an   affidavit verifying the fact that the proposed guardian has not or that no one of the proposed guardians has any interest 6 in the matters in controversy in the suit adverse to that of   the   minor   and   that   the   proposed   guardian   or guardians   are   fit   persons   to   be   so   appointed.   The affidavit   shall   further   state   according   to   the circumstances of each case particulars of any existing guardian appointed or declared by competent authority, the name and address of the person, if any, who is the de   facto   guardian   of   the   minor,   the   names   and addresses of persons, if any, who, in the event of either the   natural   or   the   de   facto   guardian   or   the   guardian appointed or declared by competent authority, not being permitted   to   act,   are   by   reason   of   relationship   or interest,   or   otherwise   suitable   persons   to   act   as guardians for the minor for the suit.

9.  Removal   of   next   friend.–(1)   Where   the   interest   of the next friend of a minor is adverse to that of the minor or   where   he   is   so   connected   with   a   defendant   whose interest  is   adverse to  that  of the minor  as to make it unlikely   that   the   minor’s   interest   will   be   properly protected by him, or where he does not do his duty, or during the pendency of the suit, ceases to reside within India, or for any other sufficient cause, application may be made on behalf of the minor or by a defendant for his removal; and the Court, if satisfied of the sufficiency of the   cause   assigned,   may   order   the   next   friend   to   be removed accordingly, and make such other order as to costs as it thinks fit.

(4) Where he elects to abandon the suit or application, he shall, if a sole plaintiff or sole applicant, apply for an order to dismiss the suit or application on repayment of the costs incurred by the defendant or opposite party or which may have been paid by his next friend.

(5)   Any   application   under   this   rule   may   be   made   ex parte;   but   no   order   discharging   a   next   friend   and permitting a minor plaintiff to proceed in his own name shall be made without notice to the next friend.

13.   Where   minor   co­plaintiff   attaining   majority desires   to   repudiate   suit.–(1)   Where   a   minor   co­ plaintiff   on  attaining  majority desires to repudiate the suit, he shall apply to have his name struck out as co­ plaintiff;   and   the   Court,   if   it   finds   that   he   is   not   a necessary   party,   shall   dismiss   him   from   the   suit   on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit.  (2) Notice of the application shall be served on the next friend, on any co­plaintiff and on the defendant. (3) The costs of all parties of such application, and of all or any proceedings theretofore had in the suit, shall be paid by such persons as the Court directs.

(2) Notice of the application shall be served on all the parties concerned; and the Court, upon being satisfied of such unreasonableness or impropriety, may grant the application and order the next friend to pay the costs of all parties in respect of the application and of anything done in the suit, or make such other order as it thinks fit.

17. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the   impugned   order   relying   upon   the   provisions   of   Hindu Guardianship Act to non­suit the plaintiff no.2 is not justified.  Having regard   to   the   totality   of   the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  it would be just and proper if the matter is remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.   Accordingly, 21 this appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for a fresh   decision   on   merits,   in   accordance   with   law.     Needless   to mention, that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.  There shall be no order as to costs.

Date : 08-01-2018 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of Judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Nikhil Majithia,Adv.

Mr. Yadav Narender Singh,AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Nishanth Patil,Adv.

Mr. Prasanna Mohan,Adv.

Mr. Anup Jain,AOR Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar pronounced the Reportable Judgment of the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra and His Lordship.

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs in terms of the signed Reportable Judgment. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Signed Reportable Judgment is placed on the file) 23