RAE SARABJIT SINGH Vs. CHAPMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEIR Lordships think that the decision of the Court below, which has been appealed against, was the right decision, but they do not agree exactly with the reasons given below.

(2.) THEIR Lordships have first to consider what point is raised by this case. The talookdar who owned the property in question became a lunatic, and an application was duly made for an inquiry into the state of his health under the 3rd section of Act XXXV. of 1858. That application was made by the officer of the district where this talook was situated, and the Civil Court to which the application was made having caused notice to be given, did enter into an inquiry, and the result was that the talookdar was adjudged to be a lunatic. Thereupon the 9th section of Act XXXV. of 1858 applied, which provides that: "When a person has been adjudged to be of unsound mind and incapable of managing his affairs, if the estate of such person or any part thereof consist of property which by the law in force in any Presidency subjects the proprietor, if disqualified, to the superintendence of the Court of Wards, the Court of Wards shall be authorized to take charge of the same." At the time Act XXXV. of 1858 was passed, Oudh was not part of the British dominions, but it has become so since, and their Lordships take it that the Court of Wards may be considered as having the same jurisdiction and all the powers that the Court of Wards elsewhere would have had. Therefore, under Section 9, the Court of Wards was authorized "to take charge of the same." It seems to have been rather hastily concluded by the Judge below that the Court of Wards being authorized by the Legislature "to take charge of the same," required some further order from the Civil Court which adjudged the talookdar to be a lunatic to justify them in acting. Their Lordships think there is no ground for saying that, though Section 9 goes on to provide: "In all other cases) except as otherwise hereinafter provided, the Civil Court shall appoint a manager of the estate."

(3.) SUCH being the case, the Court of Wards did enter into possession of the estate and the management of it. The lunatic continued to live till 1874, when a lease was granted, the details of which need not be further stated than to say that it was a lease for twenty-five years with various terms and provisions in it. It professes to be a lease of certain villages belonging to the Bhadri estate under the Court of Wards which was granted to Captain F.C. Chapman, with the sanction of the Chief Commissioner of Oudh, conveyed in a letter of the 2nd of April, 1874, to the Subordinate Commissioner. Their Lordships pause to ask, what objection is there to this lease? No attempt is made to shew that it was a lease improper in its terms, or that there was anything that amounted to an imposition, or that it was obtained by fraud or obtained improperly; but the one point relied upon against the lease is that it could not be granted for more than five years, and that objection, whatever might be its importance if the lease had been granted by one acting only under the authority of an appointment as manager by the Civil Court, does not seem to apply to a lease granted by the Court of Wards. That is the objection on which it is sought to set the lease aside.