LAWS(PVC)-1936-5-48

CHHOTI RANI SAHEBA Vs. KUMAR BRIJDEO NARAYAN SINGH

Decided On May 05, 1936
CHHOTI RANI SAHEBA Appellant
V/S
KUMAR BRIJDEO NARAYAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading up to this application are these: The proprietor of the Chainpore Estate in the district of Palamau is a minor under the Court of Wards. The Secretary of State for India in Council has instituted a suit against him for a declaration of the rights of Government in the minerals of the Chainpore Estate. We are informed that the Bengal Coal Company is also a defendant in the suit. As the Court of Wards is a department of the Government, a question arose as to the advisability of the defence by it of a suit instituted by another department of the Government. We are told that under some instructions of the Government of India the Court of Wards under Section 52, Court of Wards Act, appointed a Board of Guardians which became the guardians ad litem of the minor defendant under the provisions of that section and the names of the member of the Board of Guardians were substituted for the name of the manager who under Section 51, Court of Wards Act was made the guardian ad litem of the defendant. It is said that the Court of Wards became dissatisfied with the manner in which the members of the Board were conducting the defence of the suit.

(2.) It, therefore, in pursuance of some further instructions from the Government of India passed on 17 August 1935, a resolution sanctioning the appointment of Mr. Girindra Nath Mukherji, an advocate of this Court, as guardian ad litem of the minor in place of the Board of Guardians. On 14 August 1935, three days before the resolution of the Court of Wards an application was made by the manager of the estate of the ward asking the learned Subordinate Judge before whom the suit is pending to remove the Board from the guardianship of the minor defendant, and substitute in its place the name of Mr. G.N. Mukherji as his guardian ad litem. Objections against the adoption of this course was raised by the members of the Board who were till then acting as guardians ad litem. The order on the application of the manager was passed on 11 November 1935, and it purports to remove the Board of Guardians and substitute in their place the name of Mr. G.N. Mukherji. The members of the Board have moved this Court against this order. There is no doubt that the procedure adopted in the Court below was entirely irregular and misconceived. When a defendant in a suit is a ward of Court, the civil Court has absolutely no power of appointing a guardian ad litem for him or removing a guardian who has been acting for him. Section 51, Court of Wards Act, runs thus: In every suit brought by or against any ward he shall be therein described as a ward of Court; and the manager of such ward's property, or if there is no manager, the Collector of the district in which the greater part of such property is situated, or any other Collector whom the Court of Wards may appoint in that behalf, shall be named as next friend or guardian for the suit, and shall in such suit represent such ward, and no other person shall be ordered to sue or be sued as next friend or be named as guardian for the suit by any civil Court in which such suit may be pending.

(3.) It is obvious that the power of the civil Court to appoint a guardian ad litem to defend the suit of a minor provided in Order 32 has no application when the minor happens to be a ward of Court and in that order of the Code it has been clearly laid down that it has no application in the case of a minor whose estate is under the Court of Wards. Now, in this case the Secretary of State for India in Council sued the defendant through the guardianship of the Manager of the Court of Wards as required by Section 51, Court of Wards Act. Section 52 authorizes the Court of Wards, if it so likes, to direct that instead of the manager of the estate acting as the guardian ad litem of the minor the guardian shall be such person whom the Court of Wards may appoint in that behalf, and when this appointment is made and communicated to the civil Court it is the duty of that Court to substitute the name of the man so appointed in place of the name of the manager. In this case the Board of Guardians appointed by the Court of Wards was substituted for the manager on the latter's application. Now, by the resolution of the Court of Wards, above referred to, the members of the Board have been removed and in their place Mr. G.N. Mukherji has been appointed guardian ad litem. The proper procedure in such a case was to communicate the new appointment to the civil Court which under the provisions of Section 52 was bound to substitute the name of Mr. G.N. Mukherji in place of the names of the members of the Board of Guardians. This was not done and the learned Subordinate Judge has removed the Board of Guardians on the application of the manager who was no party to the suit and who applied for the removal of the members of the Board before the resolution of the Court of Wards. In the case of a minor under the Court of Wards the civil Courts have no responsibility of appointing or removing a guardian. The matter is entirely in the hands of the Court of Wards and the civil Courts have simply to recognize the guardian appointed by it.