W BARROW Vs. GAYA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent, Gaya Prasad, for the recovery of Rs. 4,618-8 on the basis of a promissory-note said to have been made in his favour by Babu Ram Bahadur Singh, represented in this suit by the Court of Wards, Bengal, on the 11th of September 1906. First appeal No. 336 of 1910 arises out of a suit brought by the same person on three promissory-notes said to have been made in his favour by Ram Bahadur Singh on the 27th of December 1906, 29th of December 1906, and 31st of December 1906. Ram Bahadur Singh was, on his own application, under Section 6 (e) of the Bengal Court of Wards Act, IX of 1879, declared to be a disqualified proprietor and his estate was taken under the charge of the Court of Wards in March 1907. Both the suits were tried together in the Court below and may be disposed of here by the same judgment. The Court of Wards pleaded that the notes were not made for consideration, and that the ward, Ram Bahadur Singh, had, after his estate was taken under the management of the Court of Wards, made the promissory-notes in favour of the respondent in pursuance of an arrangement that if the amounts of the notes were paid by the Court of Wards, those amounts would be divided between the respondent and the ward. The Court of Wards further pleaded that Ram Bahadur Singh had not mentioned these promissory-notes in the list of debts when his estate was taken under the charge of the Court of Wards, although the claims of other petty creditors were mentioned, that the respondent did not file particulars of his claim before the Collector of Monghyr notwithstanding the publication of a general notice under Bengal Act I of 1906, which amended the Bengal Court of Wards Act of 1879, and that, therefore, no suit could be maintained on the promissory-notes.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge fixed three issues; (1) Whether the notes were admissible in evidence; (2) whether the notes were made for consideration and whether they were ante-dated, and (3) whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest. The Subordinate Judge found that the notes were admissible in evidence, that they were made for the consideration mentioned therein and were made on the dates on which they purport to have been made, and that the respondent was entitled to interest. Accordingly, he decreed the claims.

(3.) The Court of Wards appeal. In this Court, they repeat the pleas taken in the Court below and suggest that the trial of the case was unsatisfactory and that this Court should order a further inquiry.