Agreement or compromise by next friend or guardian for the suit
Full Text
(1) No next friend or guardian for the suit shall, without the leave of the Court, expressly recorded in the proceedings, enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor with reference to the suit in which he acts as next friend or guardian.
(1A) An application for leave under sub-rule (1) shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the next friend or the guardian for the suit, as the case may be, and also, if the minor is represented by a pleader, by the certificate of the pleader, to the effect that the agreement or compromise proposed is, in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor: Provided that the opinion so expressed, whether in the affidavit or in the certificate shall not preclude the Court from examining whether the agreement or compromise proposed is, for the benefit of the minor.
(2) Any such agreement or compromise entered into without the leave of the Court so recorded shall be voidable against all parties other than the minor.
Plain English Summary
Cornerstone provision governing compromises involving minors, mandating express prior leave of the court recorded in writing, backed by an affidavit and advocate's certificate of minor's benefit under sub-rule (1A), rendering any unauthorized compromise voidable at the option of the minor under sub-rule (2).
Key Legal Elements
- Condition Precedent: Express leave of the court recorded in the order sheet.
- Advocate Certificate (Sub-rule 1A): Mandatory certificate by pleader certifying compromise is for minor's benefit.
- Independent Judicial Duty (Proviso): Court must independently evaluate benefit; cannot mechanically accept advocate's certificate.
- Voidable Character (Sub-rule 2): Agreement without recorded leave is voidable at the sole instance of the minor, but binding on adult parties.
Practical Note
Settlement Protocol Involving Minors — Supreme Court Landmark: 1. Strict Compliance is Imperative: In Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni Rai AIR 1951 SC 280 and Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel (1988) 1 SCC 270, the Supreme Court established that the leave of the court under Rule 7 must be express and recorded in the order sheet after applying judicial mind; an omnibus compromise recording 'compromise verified' does NOT constitute valid leave. 2. Filing the Compromise Application: When settling a partition, partition appeal, or property suit involving minors, counsel must file: (a) An application under Order XXXII Rule 7(1), (b) Guardian's affidavit, and (c) Advocate's Certificate of Benefit under Rule 7(1A). Ensure the Judge writes: 'Leave is granted to the guardian to enter into compromise as it is for the benefit of the minor'.
हिंदी पाठ
(1) कोई भी वाद-मित्र या वाद के वास्ते संरक्षक, कार्यवाहियों में अभिव्यक्त रूप से अभिलिखित न्यायालय की इजाजत (Leave of the Court) के बिना, अवयस्क की ओर से उस वाद के संदर्भ में कोई करार या समझौता नहीं करेगा जिसमें वह वाद-मित्र या संरक्षक के रूप में कार्य करता है।
(1क) उप-नियम (1) के अधीन इजाजत के लिए आवेदन के साथ, यथास्थिति, वाद-मित्र या संरक्षक का एक शपथपत्र और यदि अवयस्क का प्रतिनिधित्व किसी प्लीडर द्वारा किया जा रहा है तो उस प्लीडर का यह प्रमाणपत्र (Advocate Certificate) संलग्न होगा कि प्रस्तावित करार या समझौता उसकी राय में अवयस्क के फायदे (Benefit of the minor) के लिए है: परंतु इस प्रकार व्यक्त की गई राय न्यायालय को यह जांच करने से प्रवारित नहीं करेगी कि क्या प्रस्तावित समझौता अवयस्क के फायदे के लिए है।
(2) न्यायालय की इस प्रकार अभिलिखित इजाजत के बिना किया गया ऐसा कोई भी करार या समझौता अवयस्क से भिन्न सभी पक्षकारों के विरुद्ध शून्यकरणीय (Voidable against all parties other than the minor) होगा।