RAJA RAM VS NAVEEN CHAND

A Rough Draft made by:

Sachin Kumar

Roll No: 2145

Course: B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)

Semester: 5th

Submitted to:

Dr. MEETA MOHANI

FACULTY OF LAW OF EVIDENCE

Chanakya National Law University

A research proposal submitted in partial fulfilment of the course

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE

for attaining the degree B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)

AUGUST, 2021
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Nyaya Nagar, Mithapur, Patna (Bihar)-800001

 FACTS OF THE CASE

The plaintiff Navin Chandra had filed the suit giving rise to this appeal through a
next friend on 17th July, 1974 alleging himself to be a minor and seeking
cancellation of the sale-deed dated 1-4-1971 in respect of plot No. 300 which had
been executed by his mother in favour of the defendant. In the plaint the plaintiffs
age was disclosed to be 12 years. In the written statement, the plaintiffs age was
disclosed to be only 10 years. The fact that on the date of the execution of the
sale-deed in question, the plaintiff was a minor was not disputed. The plaintiff
had challenged the validity of the sale-deed in question on the ground that the
sale-deed had been executed without obtaining the requisite permission from the
District Judge as contemplated under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act. The aforesaid suit was contested by the present appellant
asserting that Jagannath who was shown to be the next friend of the minor
plaintiff had no right to file the suit. It was also asserted that the suit was barred
by Section 331 of the U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act and in any case, the
plain tiff should return the sale money and without such payment the sale-deed
could not be cancelled. The defendant also asserted that since Jagannath, the
alleged next friend through whom the plaintiff had filed the suit could be treated
as a next friend of the plaintiff on account of his interest being adverse to the
plaintiff no decree in favour of the plaintiff could have been passed, it was also
asserted that in any event since the plaintiff had attained majority on 24-5-1980
on his own showing the suit could if at all be deemed to have been filed on the
said date and since the sale-deed in dispute had been executed on 1-4-1971 and
the suit to have been filed on 24-5-1980 it was liable to be dismissed as having
become barred by time on that date.
 AIMS AND OBJECTIVE
To study the case law and provision related to suit filed by minor in CPC-1908.

HYPOTHESIS
The researcher hypothesizes that suit instituted in the name of minor by Next
friend of minor shall be binding against minor unless prejudice has been caused
to his interest.

TENTATIVE CHAPTERISATION
❖ Introduction
❖ Facts of the case
❖ Relevant provisions
• CPC –(a) Order XXXII, R.1,2 and 3A
(b) section -100
• Section 8 of Hindu minority and guardianship act-1956
❖ Case Laws
❖ Conclusion
❖ Suggestion
❖ Reference