Section 147 — Consent or agreement by persons under disability
Binding a minor — but only through the Court. In a suit where a person under disability (a minor or person of unsound mind) is a party, a consent or agreement as to any proceeding, given by the next friend or guardian for the suit with the express leave of the Court, has the same force and effect as if the party were under no disability and had consented himself.
How to read Section 147
The setting
A suit with a person under disability — a minor or person of unsound mind — who acts through a next friend or guardian for the suit.
The gate
Any consent or agreement on his behalf needs the express leave of the Court — the safeguard against an improvident bargain.
The effect
Once leave is given, the consent binds him as if he were under no disability and had given it himself.
The bare Act
In all suits to which any person under disability is a party, any consent or agreement, as to any proceeding shall, if given or made with the express leave of the Court by the next friend or guardian for the suit, have the same force and effect as if such person were under no disability and had given such consent or made such agreement.
In short: a minor or unsound-minded party cannot give a binding consent himself — but his next friend or guardian can, provided the Court expressly permits it; then it binds the party just as an adult’s own consent would.
→ § 147 is a protective provision. A person under disability is not competent to bind himself; the law lets his representative do so on his behalf, but interposes the Court’s express leave as a check that the step is in his interest. With leave, the consent is fully effective; this complements Order XXXII (suits by / against minors), whose rule 7 likewise requires leave for any agreement or compromise on a minor’s behalf.
Key terms decoded
A minor or a person of unsound mind — in law not competent to conduct litigation or bind himself, so he acts through a representative.
The person who represents a minor / disabled plaintiff — bringing and conducting the suit on his behalf.
The person appointed to represent a minor / disabled defendant (a guardian ad litem) — defending the suit for him.
The Court’s specific, explicit permission — not assumed or implied. It is the safeguard that the consent serves the disabled party’s interest.
The consent / agreement may relate to any step or matter in the suit — e.g. a compromise, an admission, or how a proceeding is conducted.
With leave, the representative’s consent binds the party exactly as a competent adult’s own consent would — no less, no more.
The picture — consent for a minor, vetted by the Court
§ 147 lets a suit involving a minor move forward by representative consent — while the requirement of the Court’s express leave ensures the disabled party is not bound by anything the Court has not first approved as being in his interest.
Part by part — the one sentence
In all suits to which any person under disability is a party, any consent or agreement, as to any proceeding…
It applies in any suit with a party under disability, to any consent or agreement about a proceeding in it.
…shall, if given or made with the express leave of the Court by the next friend or guardian for the suit…
Two conditions: it is given by the next friend / guardian, and with the Court’s express leave. Both are essential.
…have the same force and effect as if such person were under no disability and had given such consent or made such agreement.
It then binds the party as fully as a competent adult’s own consent — the disability is, for this purpose, treated as absent.
Why it matters
Move the suit forward — without exposing the vulnerable party
The Court’s leave is the hinge on which the whole protection turns.
Connected provisions
Section 147 closes Part XI’s restitution & relief group (§§ 144–147). It is the general counterpart to Order XXXII (suits by / against minors and persons of unsound mind), whose rule 7 requires the Court’s leave for any agreement or compromise on such a party’s behalf.