Atmaram v. Punjabrao

1. This is an application for review of the judgment of this Court in Second Appeal No. 282-B of 1924 on the ground that the judgment is not in consonance with the views of this Court as explained in certain cases referred to, including one published judgment, Jago v. Oodal, [1906] 4 L.N.R 20 and that the principle laid down in that case is recognised in Vithu v. Devidas [1919] 15 N.L.R 55 , 51 I.C 943 referred to in the judgment of which review is sought, and that the effect of the judgment which deals with the validity of alienations made by the de facto guardian of a Hindu minor will affect a number of people and that the point may be referred to a Full Bench.

2. As regards the last point I am of opinion that a case already decided cannot be referred to a Full Bench.

3. The application is really based on the judgment being wrong in law, and as such it is covered by the recent ruling of the Patna High Court in Srimati Garabini Kamarin v. Suraja Narain Singh 1924 Patna 250 , 3 Pat. 134 , 5 P.L.T 52 , 1923 P.H.C.C 361 which lays down that a judgment cannot be reviewed under Order XLVII, rule 1(1), on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record when the alleged mistake or error is a wrong exposition of the law, as, for in stance, when the judgment is based on a precedent which has been modified by a subsequent decision.

4. It was further held that even assuming that the discovery of an authoritative precedent, by which a precedent relied on in the judgment has been modified amounts to the discovery of new and important evidence within the meaning of Order XLVII, rule 1(1), such a discovery is not a ground for review without strict proof that the subsequent authority was not within the knowledge of the applicant, or would not be produced by him when the decree or order was passed or made.

5. The judgments quoted in the application are all long prior to the present case and could have been quoted at the hearing when both sides were represented by counsel and the case was argued at length. As a matter of fact my notes show that Second Appeal No. 316-B of 1914, referred to in the application, was quoted. The review is really an attempt to argue the appeal which cannot be allowed.

6. The Patna case is based on the Privy Council decision in Chhajju Rani v. Naki 1922 P.C 112 , 3 Lah. 127 , 49 I.A 144 , 30 M.L.T 295 , 16 M.L.W 37 , 26 C.W.N 697 , 3 P.L.T 435 , 17 P.W.R 1922 , 24 Bom. L.R 1238 , 30 C.L.J 450 , 43 M.L.J 332 (P.C) in which it was held that a review cannot be ordered on the ground that the decision was wrong on the merits. Assuming therefore that my judgment is wrong in law, which the other side would presumably not admit, that is no ground for a review.

7. If, as is stated, there are conflicting decisions of this Court on the question of the validity of alienations made by the de facto guardian of a Hindu minor, the next appeal in which this question occurs might properly be referred to a Full Bench unless the Privy Council decides the question in the meanwhile.

8. In the present case as the plaintiff has been ordered to repay to the purchaser the amounts they have paid to the de facto guardian no injustice has been done to them, and as to the alleged injury which is likely to be done to the estates of orphans, the Guardians and Wards Act was passed in order to legalise the position of guardians and can always be availed of.

9. I accordingly reject the application without issuing notice to the other side.

10. Application rejected.