RAMA BAHADUR KAMAKSHYA NARAIN SINGH Vs. HARKHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff under the Letters Patent from a decision of Ray J. Plaintiff is the proprietor of the Rarngarh Raj, the management of which was taken over by the Court of Wards in 1913 in the time of his grandfather. It was restored to the plaintiff on his attaining majority in 1937.

(2.) The ancestors of the defendants held village Lowlang in mukarrari under the Raj. After the death of the then mukarraridar without male issue, the Court of Wards manager, on behalf of the Raj, sued to resume the village. He also claimed Rs. 1639 as mesne profits between the date of the death of the last mukarraridar and the institution of the suit. The present defendant, as heir of the last mukarraridar, alone entered a defence. The suit was decreed ex parte and the present defendant satisfied the claim for mesne profits. The manager then settled with him 20.36 acres of zirat land in khatas 1, 2 and 28 of village Lowlang on an annual rental of Rs. 35-15-0. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted for recovery of this land. It succeeded in the first Court except with regard to a part of the claim for mesne profits. On appeal by the defendant the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred a second appeal to this Court, which was dismissed.

(3.) The Court below having found that the settlement with the defendant was not vitiated by reason of any mala fides on the part of the manager of the Court of Wards, the first question that falls for consideration is whether the settlement with the defendant was void by reason of lack of authority in the manager to make it. This requires a consideration of certain provisions of the Court of "Wards Act and the rules framed under it. Section 14 of the Act empowers the Court of Wards (which, by definition, means the Board of Revenue) through its manager to do all such things requisite for the proper care and management of any property, -of which it may take or retain charge under the Act. Section 15 empowers the Court to exercise the power conferred on it by the Act through the Commissioners of the divisions and the Collectors of the districts, in which any part of the property of disqualified proprietor may be situated, or through any other person whom it may appoint for the purpose, By the same section the Court of Wards is also authorised to delegate any of its powers to such Commissioners or Collectors or other persons as aforesaid. The manager appointed by the Court of Wards is "any other person" for the purposes of this section. By Section 18, the Court of Wards is empowered to sanction the giving of leases or farms of the whole or part of any property under its charge. Apart from the general power conferred on the manager by Section 14 "to do all such things requisite for the proper care and management of the property," Section 39 provides that Every manager appointed by the Court shall have power to manage all property which may be committed to his charge, to collect the rents of the land entrusted to him, as well as all other money due to the ward, and to grant receipts therefor, and may under the orders of the Court, grant or renew such leases and farms as may be necessary for the good management of the property. The power of granting or renewing leases under this section, it will be observed, is subject to the order of the Court. In the present case, it has not been shown that the Court of Wards ordered or sanctioned the settlement of the land in dispute with the defendant. If, therefore, the validity of the settlement depended on the powers conferred on the manager under Section 39, it would undoubtedly be void.