HARIHAR PRASAD Vs. HARENDRA BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal. He brought the suit out of which it has arisen, on foot of a promissory note executed on 13 August 1923, by the respondent. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance and was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The ground for the dismissal by the lower appellate Court was that the execution of the document by the respondent who is a ward of the Court, was prohibited by Section 37, Court of Wards Act, being Act 4 of 1912.

(2.) It appears that the respondent's estate was taken over by the Court of Wards for management, at the respondent's own request made under Section 10, United Provinces Court of Wards Act. Under Section 37, same Act, A ward shall not be competent... to enter into any contract which may involve him in pecuniary liability.

(3.) The Court of first instance found on the basis of certain copies of khataunis and khewats, that the respondent was still recorded as in possession of certain sir lands and that his name was recorded in certain khewats. It came to the conclusion that the respondent was in spite of his property being under the management of the Court of Wards, in possession of certain property as a private owner and that, therefore, Section 37, United Provinces, Court of Wards Act had no application, at least, to the extent of the private property. The lower appellate Court did not enter into the question as to whether it was a fact that the respondent was in possession of some property on his own account. It held that the respondent was a ward within the meaning of Section 3 and Section 37 of the Act and the prohibition applied with full force.