RAJA BHAGWAN BAKHSH SINGH Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against a decree of the learned Civil Judge, of Allahabad, dismissing his claim for a, declaration that a certain declaration, made by the Local Government of the-United Provinces under Section 8, U.P. Court of "Wards Act, 1912, was illegal and ultra vires. The plaintiff is a taluqdar and is the proprietor of a large estate known as the Amethi estate which is said to be worth about 1? crores of rupees. On 7 March 1930, the Local Government of the United Provinces acting under Section 8, Court of "Wards Act, declared the plaintiff to be disqualified to manage his own property and consequently the Court of "Wards, assumed superintendence of the property of the plaintiff under Section 12 (1), Court of "Wards Act. The plaintiff alleged that the declaration made by the Local Government disqualifying him from managing his own property was contrary to the provisions of Section 8, U.P. Court of Wards Act and consequently brought this suit for a declaration that the said declaration of the Local Government was ultra vires and illegal and of no effect.

(2.) The facts in this case are not disputed and the questions raised are purely questions of law. The Amethi estate owned by the plaintiff consists of villages in the districts of Sultanpur and Mirzapur and other immoveable property situate in the districts of Allahabad, Benares, Luoknow, Mirzapur and Sultanpur. It would also appear that the plaintiff was the owner of considerable moveable property. On 13 July 1929, the Governor in Council of the United Provinces in the exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9(1), U.P. Court of Wards Act, directed an enquiry to be made into the circumstances of the plaintiff and the extent of his indebtedness and as a result of such enquiries a letter dated 17 September 1929, was sent by Mr. Walton, Commissioner of Fyzabad Division, to the plaintiff informing him of the result of such enquiries. This letter is printed at p. 101 of the paper book and therein it is set out that the plaintiff's indebtedness amounted to Rs. 14,45,160 upon which interest at the contractual rates amounted to Rs. 1,22,110, The gross profits of the estate are stated to be Rs. 3,06,508 and it is pointed out that the interest at contractual rates upon the debts exceeded 1/3 of the plaintiff's gross annual profits. It is also pointed out that the plaintiff had, without sufficient cause failed to discharge the debts and the liabilities due from him and it is alleged that since 1920, the debts had actually increased by Rs. 3,26,000. Lastly, the Commissioner states that the failure to discharge these debts and liabilities is likely to lead to the dissipation of the property as was evidenced by proceedings then pending at the suit of the Allahabad Bank for the sale of 48 villages belonging to the plaintiff. The letter concludes by calling upon the plaintiff under Section 8(2), U.P. Court of Wards Act, to show cause why a declaration disqualifying him from managing his estate should not be made.

(3.) The plaintiff contested the accuracy of the figures given by the Commissioner and did show cause why a declaration disqualifying him from the management of his property should not be made. The Local Government, however, were satisfied with the accuracy of their figures and also were of opinion that the failure of the plaintiff to discharge his debts was prejudicial to the estate and likely to lead to the dissipation of the property. Consequently on 7 March 1930, the Local Government acting under Section 8(1), Court of Wards Act, declared the plaintiff to be a disqualified proprietor. The suit was launched by the plaintiff in the Court below to obtain a declaration that this declaration of the Local Government was null and void by reason of the fact that the Government had exceeded their powers and that the declaration was not validly made under Section 8 of the Act. It was the case for the plaintiff that the declaration was ultra vires and invalid by reason of two facts : (a) That the aggregate annual interest payable at the contractual rates on the debts and liabilities of the plaintiff did not exceed 1/3 of the gross annual profits of the property, and (b) that the failure to discharge the debts and liabilities in the past was not likely to lead to the dissipation of the property.