Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of ‘Next Friend’ in Suits Filed on Behalf of Minors: Nagaiah vs. Chowdamma (2018) INSC 12

Date of the Judgment: 08 January 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 12

Judges: Arun Mishra, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

Can an elder brother represent his minor sibling in a property dispute, especially when the father, who is the natural guardian, has a conflicting interest? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a property dispute where the minor’s father had sold the property, leading to a legal battle. The Court clarified the role and scope of a ‘next friend’ in representing minors in civil suits. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property dispute where two brothers, Nagaiah and Krishna, filed a suit against their father, Kempaiah, and a purchaser, Chowdamma. The brothers claimed that the property was jointly owned by them and their father, and that the sale deed executed by their father in favor of Chowdamma was not binding on their share. At the time of filing the suit on 24 January 1985, Krishna was a minor, aged about 17 years. Nagaiah, the elder brother, filed the suit on his own behalf and as the ‘next friend’ of his minor brother, Krishna.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially dismissed the suit. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision and decreed the suit in favor of the brothers. Subsequently, the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, in a second appeal, overturned the first appellate court’s decision, dismissing the suit. The High Court held that the elder brother, Nagaiah, could not act as the guardian of his minor brother, Krishna, during the lifetime of their father, Kempaiah, as the father was the natural guardian and Nagaiah was not appointed by any competent court.

Legal Framework

The High Court relied on Section 4(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which defines a ‘guardian’ as a person having the care of a minor’s person or property, including natural guardians, testamentary guardians, and court-appointed guardians. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that the present case is governed by Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which deals with suits by or against minors. Specifically, Order XXXII, Rule 1 of the CPC states that every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who shall be called the ‘next friend’ of the minor. The court also referred to Rules 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 14 of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Order XXXII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure states:

“Every suit by a minor shall be instituted in his name by a person who in such suit shall be called the next friend of the minor.”

Section 4(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act defines ‘guardian’ as:

“(b) “guardian” means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property, and includes—
(i) a natural guardian,
(ii) a guardian appointed by the will of the minor’s father or mother,
(iii) a guardian appointed or declared by a court, and
(iv) a person empowered to act as such by or under any enactment relating to any court of wards;”

Arguments

The primary contention before the Supreme Court was whether the elder brother could act as the ‘next friend’ of his minor brother. The High Court had ruled against this, stating that the father was the natural guardian. However, the Supreme Court considered the following arguments:

• The appellants (the brothers) argued that Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure allows any person of sound mind and majority, whose interest is not adverse to the minor, to act as a ‘next friend’. They contended that the father’s interest was adverse to the minor’s, as the suit challenged the sale deed executed by the father.
• The respondent (Chowdamma) argued that the father, being the natural guardian, should have represented the minor, and the elder brother was not a court-appointed guardian.

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had misapplied the provisions of the Hindu Guardianship Act, which defines a ‘guardian’, instead of considering the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the concept of a ‘next friend’. The court also noted that the High Court had allowed the question of competency of the first plaintiff to represent the second plaintiff, which was not raised in the trial court or in the first appellate court, to be raised for the first time in the second appeal.

Submissions by Parties:

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellants’ argument was innovative in highlighting the conflict of interest of the natural guardian, thereby justifying the elder brother’s role as ‘next friend’ under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the first plaintiff, being the elder brother of the minor second plaintiff at the time of filing the suit, could have filed the suit on behalf of the minor as his next friend/guardian.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Kaliammal, minor by Guardian, Patta Goundan v. Ramaswamy Goundan, AIR 1949 Mad. 859 – The Madras High Court observed that there is no need for sanction of the Court for a next friend to sue, if he is not incapacitated.
• K. Kumar v. Onkar Nath, AIR 1972 All. 81 – The Allahabad High Court held the same view as the Madras High Court.
• Gopalaswamy Gounder v. Ramaswamy Kounder, AIR 2006 Ker 138 – The Kerala High Court upheld that any person who does not have any interest adverse to that of the minor can figure as his next friend.
• Brij Kishore Lal v. Satnarain Lal & Ors., AIR 1954 All. 599 – The Allahabad High Court held that the decree cannot be set aside even where certain formalities for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the defendant have not been observed.
• Anandram & Anr. v. Madholal & Ors. AIR 1960 Raj. 189 – The Rajasthan High Court held the same as the Allahabad High Court.
• Rangammal v. Minor Appasami & Ors. AIR 1973 Mad.12 – The Madras High Court held the same as the Allahabad High Court.
• Chater Bhuj Goel v. Gurpreet Singh AIR 1983 Punjab 406 – The Punjab High Court held the same as the Allahabad High Court.
• Shri Mohd. Yusuf and Ors. v. Shri Rafiquddin Siddiqui. ILR 1974 (1) Delhi 825 – The Delhi High Court held the same as the Allahabad High Court.
• Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure – The Court discussed the various rules of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Kaliammal, minor by Guardian, Patta Goundan v. Ramaswamy Goundan [AIR 1949 Mad. 859]* and K. Kumar v. Onkar Nath [AIR 1972 All. 81]* to support the view that there is no need for court sanction for a next friend to sue, if he is not incapacitated.
• The Court also cited Gopalaswamy Gounder v. Ramaswamy Kounder [AIR 2006 Ker 138]* to emphasize that any person with no adverse interest can be a next friend.
• The Court referred to Brij Kishore Lal v. Satnarain Lal & Ors. [AIR 1954 All. 599]*, Anandram & Anr. v. Madholal & Ors. [AIR 1960 Raj. 189]*, Rangammal v. Minor Appasami & Ors. [AIR 1973 Mad.12]*, Chater Bhuj Goel v. Gurpreet Singh [AIR 1983 Punjab 406]* and Shri Mohd. Yusuf and Ors. v. Shri Rafiquddin Siddiqui [ILR 1974 (1) Delhi 825]* to highlight that a decree cannot be set aside if the minor defendant is not prejudiced.
• The Court extensively discussed and applied the provisions of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to protect the interests of the minor. The Court emphasized that the ‘next friend’ should not have any adverse interest to that of the minor. The Court also noted that the High Court had misapplied the provisions of the Hindu Guardianship Act, which defines a ‘guardian’, instead of considering the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the concept of a ‘next friend’. The Court also noted that the High Court had allowed the question of competency of the first plaintiff to represent the second plaintiff, which was not raised in the trial court or in the first appellate court, to be raised for the first time in the second appeal.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%).

Logical Reasoning

Reasoning of the Court

The Supreme Court reasoned that the High Court erred in applying the definition of ‘guardian’ under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act to the concept of ‘next friend’ under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court clarified that a ‘next friend’ is a person who represents a minor in a lawsuit, and this role is distinct from that of a guardian under the Hindu law. The Court emphasized that the primary requirement for a ‘next friend’ is that their interest should not be adverse to that of the minor. In this case, the father’s interest was indeed adverse, as the suit challenged the sale deed executed by him.

The Court observed that the High Court had allowed the question of competency of the first plaintiff to represent the second plaintiff, which was not raised in the trial court or in the first appellate court, to be raised for the first time in the second appeal. The Court also noted that the High Court had misapplied the provisions of the Hindu Guardianship Act, which defines a ‘guardian’, instead of considering the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with the concept of a ‘next friend’.

The Court also pointed out that Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies the procedure for suits involving minors, and it allows any person of sound mind and majority, whose interest is not adverse to the minor, to act as a ‘next friend’. The Court noted that the elder brother fulfilled these criteria. The Court also noted that the minor had attained majority during the pendency of the suit and had continued with the proceedings, which showed his intention to pursue the case.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The next friend need not necessarily be a duly appointed guardian as specified under Sub-Section (b) of Section 4 of Hindu Guardianship Act. “Next friend” acts for the benefit of the “minor” or other person who is unable to look after his or her own interests or manage his or her own law suit (person not sui juris) without being a regularly appointed guardian as per Hindu Guardianship Act. He acts as an officer of the Court, especially appearing to look after the interests of a minor or a disabled person whom he represents in a particular matter.”

“In case, where the suit is filed on behalf of the minor, no permission or leave of the Court is necessary for the next friend to institute the suit, whereas if the suit is filed against a minor, it is obligatory for the plaintiff to get the appropriate guardian ad litem appointed by the Court for such minor.”

“The principles arising out of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Guardianship Act may not be apposite to the next friend appointed under Order XXXII of the Code. The appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the defendant or a next friend to represent the plaintiff in a suit is limited only for the suit and after the discharge of that guardian ad litem/next friend, the right/ duty of guardian as defined under sub-section (b) of Section 4 of the Hindu Guardianship Act (if he has no adverse interest) automatically continues as guardian.”

The Court concluded that the High Court’s decision to non-suit the plaintiff no. 2 based on the provisions of the Hindu Guardianship Act was not justified. The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits.

Key Takeaways

• A person can act as a ‘next friend’ for a minor in a lawsuit if they are of sound mind, have attained majority, and do not have any adverse interest to that of the minor.
• The concept of ‘next friend’ under Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure is distinct from that of a ‘guardian’ under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
• A natural guardian cannot represent a minor in a suit if their interest is adverse to that of the minor.
• If a minor attains majority during the pendency of a suit, they have the option to continue or abandon the suit.
• The Court has to give notice to a minor who has attained majority, before any adverse orders are to be made against the minor.
• The court has to be careful in applying the provisions of the Hindu Guardianship Act and the Code of Civil Procedure while dealing with suits involving minors.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the concept of a ‘next friend’ under Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure is distinct from that of a ‘guardian’ under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. A ‘next friend’ can represent a minor in a lawsuit if they are of sound mind, have attained majority, and do not have any adverse interest to that of the minor. This judgment clarifies the scope and application of Order XXXII of the Code of Civil Procedure and provides guidance on the representation of minors in civil litigation. There is no change in the previous positions of law, but the Court has clarified the distinction between a ‘guardian’ and a ‘next friend’.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Nagaiah vs. Chowdamma clarifies the role of a ‘next friend’ in representing minors in civil suits. The Court held that an elder brother could act as the ‘next friend’ of his minor brother in a property dispute, as the father, who was the natural guardian, had a conflicting interest. The Court emphasized that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically Order XXXII, govern the appointment of a ‘next friend’, and not the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. The matter was remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision on merits.