SRINIVASA RUNGA ROW PANTULU (DEAD) (REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE HIGH COURT) Vs. RAJAH OF KARVETNAGAR BY HIS GUARDIAN VARADACHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In construing the provisions of Section 41 of the Madras Court of Wards Act I of 1902, regard must be had to the scope and object of the amendments introduced into the Madras Court of Wards Regulation V of 1804 by Madras Act IV of 1899 and reproduced without substantial alteration in the Act of 1902. The object was to save the estates of embarrassed proprietors or at least a portion of them for their owners and it was hoped that with the aid of the additional powers conferred on it the Court of Wards would be able to provide for the full discharge of the proprietors debts and liabilities. If not, the creditors were left to their ordinary remedies which were only interfered with as expressly provided. Among the powers conferred on the Court of Wards and its agent the Collector specified in the order under Section 19 of the Act, was that of requiring all persons having pecuniary claims on the ward, whether decrees or not, to notify those claims within a specified period, failure to do so being visited with the penalties prescribed by Sections 41 and 42. With the information thus acquired and with aid of further powers of ousting usufructuary mortgagees from possession and converting them for the time into simple mortgages and of revising improvident leases it was hoped that the Court of Wards might find itself in a position to raise sufficient money to discharge all the liabilities. Section 41 imposes two penalties with regard to claims which have not been duly notified. The first of them is that: it shall, not-withstanding any law, contract, decree, or award to the contrary, cease to carry interest from the expiration of the period prescribed by Section 37

(2.) for notifying claims. This threatened loss of interest was a strong inducement to notify claims and having regard to the express provision that interest shall cease even when payable under a decree and to the absence of any provision as to its again becoming payable except in the event specified in Section 55(4), I agree with both the learned Judges that, under the sections, the cessation of interest is final and that the claimant is left to prosecute his legal remedies for the amount already accrued due to him.

(3.) As regards the second penalty that the unnotified claim: shall not be paid until after the discharge or satisfaction of the claims notified or admitted under Section 38,