- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rani Chhattra Kumari Debi v. Panda Radhamohan Singari
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff instituted an action to recover possession of disputed property and mesne profits after seeking to set aside an ex parte decree and the auction sale held pursuant to it. The Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur decreed the plaintiff's suit on 19 March 1919. The defendant (now appellant) had earlier obtained an ex parte decree on 19 November 1912 in a suit for road and embankment cess before the Munsiff of Motihari; the decree was executed, and the defendant purchased the property at an auction, obtaining delivery of possession through the Court in May 1913.
In her plaint to set aside the ex parte decree and sale the plaintiff alleged: (1) the decree was obtained by fraud through suppression of notice and summons, preventing the plaintiff's knowledge of the suit and execution proceedings; (2) the property (allegedly worth Rs. 10,000 as pleaded) was purchased at a grossly inadequate price of Rs. 162-8-0; and (3) the plaintiff suffered serious loss and injury from the defendant's alleged fraudulent action. The defendant denied fraud, asserted that the plaintiff's mother and guardian had knowledge of the suit, and contended the sale price was not inadequate.
The Court below found (a) that the ex parte decree was obtained by fraud and was null and void because no guardian ad litem was appointed for the minor defendant as required by Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and (b) that the auction price was grossly inadequate (court compared total collections of about Rs. 197 with the sale at Rs. 162-8). On these bases the court directed delivery of possession to the plaintiff with mesne profits. The defendant appealed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the ex parte decree was vitiated by fraud arising from non-service of notice and summons and suppression of process.
- Whether the absence of appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor defendant (as required by Order 32 of the CPC) rendered the ex parte decree null and void and therefore incapable of affecting the plaintiff's interest in the property.
- Whether the sale price at execution was grossly inadequate (compared to likely collections) so as to warrant setting aside the sale and restoring possession to the plaintiff.
- Whether the defendant had a fair opportunity to rebut the plaintiff's evidence and documentary proof (including the order sheet of the original suit).
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Counsel for the appellant (Mr. Purnendu Narain Sinha) argued the Court below did not record a sufficient finding of fraud to hold the ex parte decree vitiated and that there was no evidence of active fraud by the defendant in procuring non-service of summons or notice.
- He contended that mere non-service of summons does not necessarily prove fraud because non-service could result from laches of court officers (e.g., court peon) or other benign causes, and that it is essential to show an active step by the decree-holder to prevent service.
- He further argued that the point regarding non-appointment of a guardian was not taken in the plaint and no issue was specifically raised, thereby denying the defendant a proper opportunity to rebut that contention.
Respondent's (Plaintiff's) Position / Evidence
- The plaintiff produced evidence (the plaintiff's mother and her Karpardaz) denying service of summons or notice upon them and denying knowledge of the suit in which the ex parte decree was obtained.
- The plaintiff relied on the order sheet of the original suit (marked Exhibit 4) to show that although notice was ordered to be issued upon a proposed guardian, no guardian was ever appointed and no guardian appeared on behalf of the minor.
- The plaintiff asserted that the property was sold at a grossly inadequate price and that the plaintiff was not bound to pay the embankment cess for which the ex parte decree was obtained, so the plaintiff's substantive rights were prejudiced by the lack of representation of the minor.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Walian v. Banke Bihary Prasad Singh | Leading decision (Judicial Committee) that mere irregularity in appointment of a guardian ad litem will not render a decree null and void unless the minor's interest has suffered as a result. | The court cited this as the leading authority for the proposition that absence of formal appointment is not necessarily fatal; it used this to distinguish cases where the guardian did act and protected the minor's interest from the present case where no guardian acted or consented. |
| Paresh Nath Mallick v. Hari Charan Dey | Authority cited alongside Walian on the consequences of irregular guardian appointment. | Referenced as one of the cases where, because a guardian acted and protected the minor, the irregularity did not invalidate the decree; contrasted with the present case. |
| Nagendra Nath Bose v. Parhati Charan | Authority on irregular appointment of guardian and effect on decree. | Used as an example of cases where the minor's interests were protected despite formal irregularities; contrasted to the instant matter. |
| Surajdeo Narain Missir v. Surjug Prasad Missir | Authority on guardian acting for minor and protection of minor's interest. | Cited among cases where representation (even if informally sanctioned) meant the decree could stand. |
| Ram Asray Singh v. Sheonandan Singh | Authority on informal or irregular guardian action not necessarily invalidating decree. | Referenced to show contrast: many cases allowed decrees where guardian had effectively represented the minor. |
| Keshawesarindra Sahi v. Rani Debendra Bala Dassi | Authority on the impact of guardian action on the validity of decree. | Cited as part of the group of cases in which guardian acted and the minor's interest was protected, distinguishing them from the present facts. |
| Chhatter Singh v. Tej Singh | Authority on irregular appointment of guardian and preservation of decree where interest protected. | Included among cases supporting the proposition that mere irregularity does not automatically nullify a decree. |
| Baneswar Pramanik v. Tarapada Bhattacharjee | Authority supporting that where no guardian was appointed and the minor was not represented, the ex parte decree is not binding on the minor. | Cited to support the conclusion that an ex parte decree against an unrepresented minor (no guardian appointed) is null and void as to that minor. |
| Bhagwan Dayal v. Param Sukh Das | Authority that absence of guardian/representation can render a decree void as against the minor. | Used to reinforce the principle that where a minor was not represented and no guardian appointed, the decree is not binding. |
| Narendra Chandra Mondol v. Jogendra Narain Rai | Authority concerning non-appointment of guardian and the invalidity of proceedings affecting a minor. | Cited as additional support for the proposition that the minor is not bound by decrees where he was unrepresented. |
| Sadashiv Bamchandra Datar v. Trimbak Keshav Vaze | Authority on the necessity of representation for a minor and the effect of its absence. | Referenced among authorities where lack of guardianship invalidated proceedings against a minor. |
| Eda Punnayya v. Jangala Kama Kotayy | Authority cited for the rule that decrees against unrepresented minors are not binding. | Used to support the court's conclusion that absence of guardian meant the ex parte decree could not affect the plaintiff. |
| Lala Rampirit Prasad v. Babu Thakur Saran | Authority cited alongside other cases on non-representation of minors. | Cited as example supporting the principle that proceedings without guardian appointment do not bind the minor. |
| Rashid-un-nisa v. Muhammad Ismail Khan | Well-known Judicial Committee decision recognizing the principle that lack of guardian/representation can render a decree inapplicable to a minor. | The court noted that this well-known decision recognized the principle that supports holding the ex parte decree null and void when no guardian was appointed and the minor was unrepresented. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a step-by-step legal analysis grounded on the evidence and legal principles expressly cited in the opinion:
- Factual finding on service: The court accepted the trial court's finding — supported by testimony of the plaintiff's mother and Karpardaz and the absence of evidence of service from the defendant — that no summons or notice was served on the plaintiff or his mother in the original suit. The order sheet of the original suit (Exhibit 4) corroborated that a notice on the proposed guardian was ordered but no guardian was appointed.
- On fraud: The court agreed with the appellant's submission to the extent that mere non-service of summons, standing alone, is not conclusive evidence of fraud. The court reiterated the legal principle that to infer fraud there must be proof of some active step by the decree-holder to prevent service — mere non-service could result from laches of court officers. Consequently, the court held that the trial court's single finding of non-service did not by itself constitute sufficient legal proof of fraud attributable to the defendant.
- On absence of guardian ad litem and statutory requirement: The court examined Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (specifically Rule 3 and Rule 4, clause (3)), which make it imperative that a court appoint a guardian for a minor and that no person be appointed guardian without his consent. The court found, on the order sheet and the record, that although notice to a proposed guardian was directed, no guardian was appointed and no guardian acted for or represented the minor. There was no consent (express or implied) and no appearance by the guardian.
- Application of precedents: Relying on a line of authorities (including the leading Judicial Committee decision in Walian v. Banke Bihary Prasad Singh and other cases), the court distinguished situations where an irregular appointment was nonetheless cured by the guardian's active appearance and protection of the minor's interest, from the present situation where the minor had no representation at all. The court also relied on authorities that hold an ex parte decree obtained against an unrepresented minor (without appointment of guardian) is not binding on the minor.
- On adequacy of sale price: Independently of the guardian point, the court accepted the subordinate judge's finding that the sale price was grossly inadequate — the property would collect about Rs. 197 whereas it was sold for Rs. 162-8 — indicating prejudice to the plaintiff's interest.
- On opportunity to rebut: The court considered the procedural posture at trial and noted the defendant had an opportunity to lead evidence (a requested adjournment was denied after the defendant's counsel declined to pay costs and the defendant had earlier sought time because witnesses had missed a train). The court concluded the defendant had had a full opportunity to rebut the plaintiff's case and that documentary evidence (order sheet) could not be effectively countered by further oral evidence; accordingly, remand for further evidence was not warranted.
- Conclusion of analysis: Although the court did not find sufficient basis to impute fraud solely from non-service, it held that the statutory non-appointment of a guardian and the consequent absence of representation of the minor rendered the ex parte decree null and void as against the plaintiff. Combined with the inadequacy of the sale price and the prejudice to the plaintiff, these findings supported setting aside the sale and upholding the decree below.
Holding and Implications
Holding:
APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS.
Implications and Direct Effects:
- The decision of the Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiff (dated 19 March 1919) is upheld.
- The ex parte decree obtained against the plaintiff in the original suit was held not binding on the plaintiff because no guardian ad litem was appointed and the minor was not represented, in breach of Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- The execution sale carried out under that ex parte decree was set aside on grounds that the decree was null and void as to the plaintiff and because the sale price was found to be grossly inadequate; possession was directed to be restored to the plaintiff with mesne profits as ordered below.
- The defendant's appeal is dismissed and she is ordered to pay costs throughout (i.e., the appeal was unsuccessful and costs were awarded to the respondent / plaintiff).
- No broader change in legal principle was pronounced by the court; the opinion applies established authorities to the facts and does not purport to create a new precedent beyond the application of existing law on guardian ad litem requirements and adequacy of sale price.
This summary is based exclusively on the text of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts not contained therein.
1. This appeal arises out of an action to recover possession of the disputed property with mesne profits after setting aside an ex parte decree and auction sale held thereunder.
2. The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by the Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur by his judgment, dated the 19th of March 1919. The defendant is the appellant before us. She bad instituted a suit against the plaintiff for recovery of road and embankment cess before the Munsiff of Motihari and obtained an ex parte decree on the 19th of November 1912. This decree was executed and the birt in question was purchased by the defendant. The delivery of possession took place through the Court in May 1913. The grounds urged in the plaint for setting aside the ex parte decree and the subsequent proceedings are that (1) the decree in question was obtained by means of fraud resorted to by the decree-holder in suppressing the notice and summons and the process in the suit and the execution proceedings thereby preventing the present plaintiff from the knowledge of the suit and the proceedings, (2) that the property worth Rs. 10,000 was thus purchased by the defendant at a grossly inadequate price of Rs. 162-8-0 and (3) that the plaintiff suffered a serious loss and injury on account of the fraudulent action of the defendant. The defence was a denial of the charge of fraud and it was asserted that no fraud was committed in connection with the suit and the execution proceedings. It is also alleged that the plaintiff's mother and guardian had full knowledge about the suit and that the price of the property fetched at the auction sale was not inadequate.
3. The Court below held that the fact stated by the plaintiff was proved that the exparte decree in question was obtained by the defendant by means of fraud and that the decree obtained against the plaintiff was null and void inasmuch as no guardian ad litem was appointed on behalf of the minor to protect his interest in the suit under Order 32 of the CPC. The Court below also held that the price fetched was grossly inadequate inasmuch as the total collections of the disputed property will be about Rs. 197, whereas it was sold for Rs. 162-8 only. The Court below has therefore decreed the plaintiff's suit directing possession to be delivered to the plaintiff with mesne profits. The defendant has, therefore, come to us in appeal.
4. Mr. Purnendn Narain Sinha on behalf of the appellant urges that the Court below has not recorded a sufficient finding of fraud in order to hold that the decree in question was vitiated by reason of fraud committed by the defendant in obtaining the ex parte decree in question. He further says that there is no evidence of such a fraud. The evidence in the case consists of the plaintiffs mother and her Karpardaz. They deny the service of summons or notice upon them and knowledge of the suit in which the defendant obtained the decree in question. On behalf of the defendant no evidence of service of the notice or summons in the case was adduced. The evidence on the point was therefore one sided and the Court below has accepted that evidence. The finding of the Court below that no notice or summons was served upon the plaintiff and his mother must be accepted as unassailable.
5. There is, however, a good deal of force in the contention of Mr. Purnendu Narain Sinha that this finding alone is not sufficient to infer in law a finding of fraud, and the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong in holding that the aforesaid finding “constitutes fraud which vitiates the ex parte decree obtained by the defendant against the plaintiff”. It is concluded by authorities that the mere non-service of summons is no evidence of fraud. The summons might not have been served on account of the laches of the Court peon or on account Summons it is essential to prove that the non-service was the result of some active part taken by that party in not having the summons served and thereby keeping the opposite party from the knowledge of the suit. The point is so clear that now it hardly needs support of any authority. I, therefore, agree with the contention of Mr. Purnendu Narain Sinha that the court below has not recorded a sufficient finding to attribute fraud on the part of the defendant in obtaining the ex parte decree in question. If that were the only ground upon which the decree obtained by the defendant was attacked, then the plaintiffs suit would have been dismissed and the appeal would have been allowed; but the learned Subordinate Judge has come to a finding that the plaintiff in the suit in which an ex parte decree was passed against him was not represented at all. No guardian ad-litem of the plaintiff was at all appointed by the Court. This finding of the Subordinate Judge is borne out by the order sheet of the original suit No. 876 of 1912 (Exhibit 4). On the 9th of September 1912, the Court directed notice to issue on the minor defendant and the proposed guardian ad litem and summons on the defendant fixing the 4th of October 1912 for appointment of a guardian of the minor. After some adjournment on account of the non-receipt of the service of summons the case was ultimately taken up on the 19th of November. On that date the court recorded the following order:
“This suit and suit No. 876 of 1912 tried together. Defendant absent. Service proved. Plaintiff examined Dip Narain Lal. Suit decreed ex parte with costs”.
6. It is thus clear that although an order was passed by the Court to issue notice upon the proposed guardian, no order was passed appointing any guardian, nor did any guardian appear in the case on behalf of the minor, and as the evidence stands no summons or notice was served upon the guardian or minor as is required by Order 32, rule 3, clause (4). Rule 3 of that Order makes it imperative upon the Court to appoint a person to be guardian for the suit on behalf of a minor. Under rule 4, clause (3) no person can be appointed a guardian for the suit without his consent. Therefore according to the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure when there is a minor defendant in a suit it is incumbent upon the Court to appoint a guardian with his consent to act as a guardian in the suit on behalf of the minor.
7. Now, it has been held in a large number of cases that where the court has by its action given its sanction for the appearance of a person as guardian, the absence of a formal order of appointment is not necessarily fatal to the proceedings. In other words a mere irregularity in the appointment of a guardian ad litem will not render the decree obtained against the minor null and void unless the interest of the minor has suffered by reason of such an irregularity. The leading decision upon the subject is that of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Walian v. Banke Bihary Prasad Singh(1). Vide also Paresh Nath Mallick v. Hari Charan Dey(2); Nagendra Nath Bose v. Parhati Charan(3); Surajdeo Narain Missir v. Surjug Prasad Missir(4); Ram Asray Singh v. Sheonandan Singh(5), Keshawesarindra Sahi v. Rani Debendra Bala Dassi(6) and Chhatter Singh v. Tej Singh(7). In most of these cases the guardian did act on behalf of the minor in the case and his interest therefore was protected. Consequently in those cases it could not be said that the minor was not represented, though the representation was not formally sanctioned by the Court.
8. In some of those cases it would be noticed that the Court itself permitted the guardian to act on behalf of the minor and the guardian was therefore acting with the full knowledge and approval of the Court but here the case is of a different character. The mother of the minor who is his guardian did not know of the suit. No notice or summons was served upon her. No order of the Court was passed appointing her as guardian. No consent either express or implied was given by her land at no stage of the case she entered appearance. Therefore the suit, was decreed against the minor without any guardian and the minor was not at all represented in the suit. He is therefore not at all bound by the decree or any proceeding in connection with that decree. Baneswar Pramanik v. Tarapada Bhattacharjee(8); Bhagwan Dayal v. Param Sukh Das(9); Narendra Chandra Mondol v. Jogendra Narain Rai(10); Sadashiv Bamchandra Datar v. Trimbak Keshav Vaze(11); Eda Punnayya v. Jangala Kama Kotayy(12); Lala Rampirit Prasad v. Babu Thakur Saran(13). The principle has been recognised in the well known decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Rashid-un-nisa v. Muhammad Ismail Khan(14). Therefore the ex parte decree in question was not binding upon the plaintiff and was null and void. His interest in the property could not therefore be affected by the sale in execution of the decree.
9. Mr. Purnendu Narain Sinha, however, contends that this point was not taken in the plaint nor was any issue raised and consequently no proper opportunity was given to the defendant to rebut it. It appears, however that the order sheet of the case was filed and used as evidence on behalf of the plaintiff (marked Exhibit 4). Upon the face of that order sheet the plaintiff was not represented in the suit. It appears that on the date when the present case was taken up, that is the 14th of March 1919, after the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant wanted time on the allegation that her witnesses had missed the train and could not come that day. The Court granted adjournment on payment of Rs. 20 as costs. Mr. Kennedy, the defendant's Vakil, then intimated to the Court that his client was not willing to pay costs. The petition for time was accordingly rejected and the case was decided only upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore the defendant had full opportunity to rebut the case made by the plaintiff in evidence. Therefore there is not much substance in the contention of the appellant. In fact, no evidence is required and no evidence would be available to rebut the documentary evidence in the shape of the order sheet in the case. The Court has held upon evidence that no notice was served and there is no order of the Court appointing any guardian of the plaintiff. This is a stubborn fact and will not be upset by any amount of evidence. Therefore we are not prepared to remand the case to enable the defendant to give evidence in the case. He had full opportunity and no further evidence is possible.
10. We also note that even if the non-representation of the plaintiff in the original suit was due to any irregularity, we find that the learned Subordinate Judge has come to a clear finding upon evidence on the record that the property in suit was sold for a very inadequate price.
11. The case of the plaintiff is that he is not bound to pay the embankment cess for which the ex parte decree was obtained by the defendant. Therefore there is no question that the plaintiff has been prejudiced by reason of the non-appointment of a guardian in the case.
12. For all these reasons we uphold the decision of the Court below and dismiss the appeal with costs throughout.
13. Appeal dismissed.
Alert