COLLECTOR OF BULANDSHAHR Vs. GOKUL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Collector as manager of the Court of Wards against the plaintiff who was the creditor of the wards. In August 1927, the estate of the wards was taken over under the superintendence of the Court of Wards and the Collector of Bulandshahr began to manage the estate. The plaintiff Gokal Chand held a promissory note dated June 26, 1926, said to have been executed by the wards for Rs. 5,000, which together with interest amounted to Rs. 6,750 on June 10,1929, when the present suit out of which this appeal has arisen was tiled. Originally the Collector was not impleaded as a defendant but on his own application, dated July 23, 1929, he was made a defendant. In this application he alleged that the estate had not till then been released by the Court of Wards and that the suit as against the defendants named in the plaint was improper and contrary to law and that the Court of Wards proposed to set up a defence in the case on behalf of the defendants and could not do so unless it was made a party. He accordingly prayed that he might be made a party and allowed an opportunity to set up a defence. The Court on July 31, 1929, made the Collector a party. In the written statement filed on his behalf he took the plea inter alia that the estate had not been released by the Court of Wards and inasmuch as no notice had been given to the Collector under Section 54, Court of Wards Act, the suit was not maintainable. It may be added that a similar plea had been taken by the other defendants in their written statements.

(2.) The Court below has come to the conclusion that the estate had in fact been released on June 10, 1929, and that accordingly there was no defect in the suit either on the ground of original non-joinder of the Collector or on account of want of proper notice to him. The learned Sub-Judge has further held that a previous notice given by the creditor under Section 16, Court of Wards Act in substance complied with the requirements of the provisions of Article 54 of that Act. There were other pleas as regards absence of due execution and want of consideration which have all been decided against the defendants and which are not now seriously pressed before us in appeal. The two main points for consideration before us are: (1) whether the estate had or had not been released by the Court of Wards on June 10, 1929, and (2) if it had not been released then whether any notice as required by Section ,54 of the Act was served on the Collector.

(3.) It appears that owing to difficulties experienced in pacing off the large debts that were out-standing the Collector reported to the Court of Wards for the release of the estate and the Court of Wards applied to Government for sanction to release the estate. On May 3, 1929, the Governor-in-Council granted the necessity sanction under the third proviso to Section 44, Court of Wards Act IV of 1912 to the release of the estate from the superintendence of the Court of Wards. This sanction was communicated to the Board of Revenue, and the Secretary to the Board of Revenue forwarded a copy of the sanction to the Commissioner of the Division for information and necessary action. The letter further drew the attention of the Collector to Rules 341, 342 and 315 of the Court of Wards Manual and asked that actual date of release be reported for publication in, the U.P. Gazette.