9911796707
TMI Blog1906 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e execution of the agreement of the 27th of March 1888, to which we shall presently refer, the members of the family of Baij Nath Singh were undivided and joint, but owing to dissensions amongst them it was determined to have a partition of the joint family property. Accordingly an agreement was entered into, of date the 27th of March 1888, between the adult members of the two branches, namely, Ram Prasad Singh and his sons Ajudhia Prasad Singh and Sita Ram Singh, of the one part, and Ram Pargash Singh and Dwarka Prasad Singh, the sons of Ram Narain Singh, who was then dead, of the other part. It is recited in this agreement that the parties were equal sharers in a number of villages, the names of which are given, but that in certain other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st or the second parties, Babu Awadh Sarju Prasad Singh aforesaid or his guardian will have power to recover the money from the person and property of that party in a proper way to the extent of the injury done, i.e., the party on account of whose debt secured by the bond executed by him the property in the said Gauritar shall be jeopardised will be liable to pay ₹ 1,250. If the property be jeopardised on account of the amount due under the bonds executed by each of the parties, each of them will be liable to pay ₹ 1,250. The remaining villages were then divided between the two parties to the agreement in equal shares. No reference is made to any disputes between the parties in regard to the joint properties in the earlier part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the agreement was not a compromise of doubtful rights, and therefore did not come within the meaning of that section, and that he was therefore bound to hold that plaintiff has no right to sue. He accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's claim. It appears to us that the decision of the learned District Judge is erroneous, and for these reasons. The agreement of the 27th of March 1888 was not so much a compromise of doubtful rights between members of a family as an agreement entered into by the adult members of a joint Hindu family for the partition of the joint family property. It is settled law that a partition so made during the minority of members of a joint family will be valid, and if just and reasonable will bind the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his natural guardian. As a member of the family the plaintiff was beneficially entitled to his share in the joint family property. In the recent case of Annamali Chetty v. Murugasa Chetty (1903) L.R 30 220 their Lordships of the Privy Council defined the position of the manager of a joint family in regard to a member of that family as fallows: Such a person is not the agent of the members of the family so as to make them liable to be sued as if they were the principals of the manager. The relation of such person is not that of principal or agent, or of partners, it is much more like that of trustee and cestui que trust. In this view the relation existing between the plaintiff and the manager or managers who were parties to the partition w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ract; and either of two persons contracting together can sue the other, if the other is guilty of a breach of, or does not perform the obligations of, that contract. But a third person--a person who is not a party to the contract--cannot do so. That rule, however, is subject to this exception: if the contract, although in form it is with A, is intended to secure a benefit to B, so that B is entitled to say that he has a beneficial right as cestui que trust under that contract, then B would in a Court of Equity be allowed to insist upon and enforce the contract. Later on he said: I think what we have to consider is this--whether these two trustees, who are defendants, did enter into this contract so as to give to these infant children a be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. In the case before us the true intent and meaning of the deed of agreement of the 27th of March 1888 was, we think, to give to the plaintiff a beneficial right under it, that is, a right to have the enjoyment of the village which was allotted to him free from incumbrance, or in the alternative in lieu of the village to obtain payment of the sums covenanted to be paid. For these reasons we think that the suit was maintainable and that the decree of the lower appellate Court cannot be supported. 5. We may add that if the agreement was not enforceable by the plaintiff as a binding agreement entered into by the adult members of a joint family for the partition of the joint family property, it would, we are disposed to think, be enforceab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
