MT KAULPATI KUNWAR Vs. RAM BARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been referred to a Full Bench because the learned Judges of the Division Bench before whom the appeal came in due course were doubtful of the correctness of a decision of this Court, namely, Chhotey Lal v. Brijraj Singh .

(2.) It appears that the defendants in the suit out of which this appeal has arisen undertook to pay a certain sum of money to the plaintiff's under an agreement, dated 20 August 1921 which was registered under the law of registration. The plaintiffs sued to recover the money -due under the agreement, principal and interest. They were met with the plea on behalf of defendants 4 to 6 that they were Wards of Court and no suit could be maintained against them in their names under Section 55, Court of Wards Act, 1912, and that the contract made by them was void in law under Section 37 of the said Act, The defence found favour with the Court of first instance and the suit was decreed only against defendants 1 to 3 and as against defendants 4 to 6 it was dismissed. On appeal the learned District Judge upheld the decision of the first Court and thereupon the plaintiffs filed this second appeal. Section 55, Court of Wards Act 1912, (local), lays down that: No ward,...shall be sued.... in the civil Court otherwise than...in the name of the Collector in charge of his property.....

(3.) If therefore defendants 4 to 6 be Wards of the Court, the suit is not maintainable. Again under Section 37 of the said Act: A ward shall not be competent...to enter into any contract which may involve him in peculiar liability.....