JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated 11-8-1972 passed by Sri O.P. Sharma, Additional Commissioner, Bareilly, rejecting the application of Chandrapal dated 16-3-1972, in first appeal no. 193 of 1969. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. The facts are as follows:- "One Umrai had filed a suit under section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act against Naubat and others, which was dismissed on 11-8-1969. Umari filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. During the course of first appeal, Naubat died and was substituted by his minor son Chandrapal under the guardianship of his mother Smt. Phoola. In the court of the Additional Commissioner, Umrai and Smt. Phoola, acting as the guardian of Chandrapal, filed a compromise to effect that both the parties will have half share in the land. This compromise was duly verified and the Additional Commissioner decided the first appeal accordingly on 13-3-1972. On 16-3-1972, Chandrapal minor has moved an application for setting aside the compromise on the ground that his mother Smt. Phoolmati was acting against his interest and was not his guardian. The Additional Commissioner has rejected this application of Chandrapal. Chandrapal had now come up in revision against this order". 4. On 16-3-1972, Chandrapal minor has moved an application for setting aside the compromise on the ground that his mother Smt. Phoolmati was acting against his interest and was not his guardian. The Additional Commissioner has rejected this application of Chandrapal. Chandrapal had now come up in revision against this order". 4. The grounds taken in the revision are firstly that the compromise as entered into between the then guardian of the minor and the opposite party was on the face of it very much against the interest of minor and the Additional Commissioner has acted without jurisdiction and arbitrarily in recording the compromise and passing decree thereon: Secondly that the reasoning of the Additional Commissioner that it was in the nature of family settlement of safeguard the future of Chandrapal minor and to avoid further litigation is on the face of it absurd when the compromise is against the interest of the minor, how could the court say that it would safeguard the minor's future and save him from litigation and the court is bound to look to the facts of the case and if necessary remove the guardian and litem and appoint another; thirdly that when the minor came forward to get the compromise set aside, the Additional Commissioner has no power to uphold it on the ground that it was for the benefit of the minor and lastly that the learned Additional Commissioner ignored the fact that opposite party's suit had been dismissed in toto by the trial court but by the compromise the minor was being deprived of half of the land without any valid reason. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist cited Sheo Sagar Singh v. Sita Ram Kumar (A.I.R. 1952 Patna page 48). in which the learned Bench of the Patna High Court observed as follows:- "In Subramanian Chettiar v. Raja Rajeshwar Daral, 39 Mad 115 their Lordships of the Privy Council quoted with approval the aforesaid observation of Lord Mac Naghten in Manohar Lal's case and pointed out that the provisions relating to the leave of the Court in permitting compromise on behalf of minors are of great importance for the protection of the interest of a minor. It is now a well established principle of law that it is the duty of the court to see that the interests of minors are adequately protected and where a compromise affecting the minor is proposed to be effected, it is of very great importance that the conscience of the Court should be satisfied that the compromise is really in the interest of the minor and that in ordinary circumstances when the court records an order to that effect it may be assumed unless there be indication to the contrary, that the court has exercised its judicial discretion. But in cases in which the circumstances however, are peculiar or suspicious, as they are in the present case it is clear that a heavy responsibility lies upon the court to scrutinise with care the terms of the proposed compromise and the circumstances connected therewith in order that the conscience of the court may be satisfied that the compromise is really for the benefit of the minor. In Govind Swami v. Alagiri Sami, 29 Mad. 104 it has been held that in sanctioning compromise on behalf of minors the order should state in terms that the question that the compromise was for the benefit of the minors was considered. In Sri Narayan Singh v. Posan Singh, 23 Patna L.T. 602 it was held that:- "that court cannot give effect to a compromise which has been entered into by the guardian of the minors without its previous sanction". 6. Another ruling cited is Narayana v. Gopalan, (A.I.R. 1960 Kerala page 367) in which the following observations have been made:- "The next and the more important question is whether the circumstances of the present case would justify a finding that the guardian and litem acted in a grossly negligent manner in the previous suit. The negligence of the guardian in order to be a good ground for the avoidance of a decree must as has been stated before be of such character as to justify the inference that the minor's interests were not a all protected and in substance though not in form the minor went unrepresented in the trial court. Gross negligence on the part of the guardian can be inferred from his conduct in not setting up proper defence." 7. Gross negligence on the part of the guardian can be inferred from his conduct in not setting up proper defence." 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party has on the other land cited Bakhshi Ram v. Shila Devi, (A.I.R. 1960 Punjab page 304) in which the following observations were made:- "Under section 6 in the absence of the father mother is the natural guardian of both person and property. Therefore no guardian of the person as well as property can be appointed in the presence of the mother, unless it was shown that the mother had in some way made herself unfit to retain the custody of the minors or the custody of the property of the minors. That the mother has remarried is not one of the disqualifications. This ruling however does not held the opposite parties at all. It is true that the mother is the natural guardian of her minor son, but this ruling itself says that if the mother makes herself unfit to retain the custody of the minor or the property of the minor, some other guardian can be appointed in her place." 8. In the present case, the trial court has given the decision in favour of the minor. By the said compromise, the mother of the minor has parted away half share of the minor. This is definitely against the interest of the minor. Further, the mother has shown herself to be unfit to be the guardian of her minor son, as, according to the affidavit filed by Salig Ram, who is now acting as the guardian of Chandrapal, the mother of the minor Chandrapal has developed relations with one Sunder Lal and lives with him and does not look after the minor son who is now being looked after by Salig Ram. This affidavit of Salig Ram has not been controverted either by the opposite party Naubat or by Smt. Phoolmati, mother of the guardian and has got to be believed. It was, therefore, the court below's duty to removed Smt. Phoolmati from the guardianship of the minor Chandrapal and to appoint another guardian who may look after the interest of Chandrapal. The compromise entered into by Smt. Phoolmati as the mother of minor Chandrapal, is invalid being against the interest of the minor. The learned Additional Commissioner has acted without jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the minor. 9. The compromise entered into by Smt. Phoolmati as the mother of minor Chandrapal, is invalid being against the interest of the minor. The learned Additional Commissioner has acted without jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the minor. 9. In hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner. The application of the minor Chandrapal dated 16-3-1972 is hereby allowed.