Dokku Bhushayya v Katragadda Ramakrishnayya

• A money decree was passed against the appellant, then a minor represented by his maternal grandfather as guardian, and his father. Properties were sold in execution. The guardian applied to set aside the sale and then, by a compromise with the decree holder and the auction purchaser, withdrew the application. On attaining majority the appellant sued to set aside the withdrawal order, arguing that leave under O.XXXII R.7 had not been obtained.

1. Whether the guardian needed the leave of the court under O.XXXII R.7 to agree to withdraw the application to set aside the sale.

• By majority (Subba Rao and Mudholkar JJ; Sarkar J dissenting), R.7 applies only to an agreement or compromise "with reference to the suit": (i) where rights in issue are involved, not mere procedural steps; (ii) during the pendency of the suit, including execution; and (iii) with a party to the suit. The agreement to withdraw did not affect the rights declared by the decree, so leave was not needed and the withdrawal bound the appellant.

Leave under O.XXXII R.7 is required for agreements that affect the minor's rights in issue, not for procedural steps such as withdrawing an application.