COLLECTOR OF BALLIA Vs. BENAIK PERSHAD PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of an amount from the estate of Banke Bahadur Singh, deceased. The plaintiffs impleaded the minor sons of Banke Bahadur Singh under the guardianship of their mother, Mt. Janki Kunwar. She declined to act as guardian, and ultimately the Collector, as the manager of the Court of Wards, was appointed the guardian ad litem of the minors. One of the pleas raised in defence was that the minors were the wards of the Court of Wards and could not be sued in their personal capacity without impleading the Collector. The Court of first instance overruled this plea on the view that the presumption under Section 16, Court of Wards Act of 1912 was rebuttable and it was established by evidence that the Court of Wards had not in fact taken possession of some of the properties of the wards. An appeal was preferred by the Collector of Ballia on behalf of the minor defendants, and that appeal has been dismissed by the Judge, although he did not accept the interpretation of Section 16, as put upon it by the trial Court.

(2.) The whole of the Nagra estate of which some properties form part which are stated to be still in the possession of the wards and not in the possession of the Court of Wards, was taken over by the Court of Wards in 1904 when the defendants grandfather was alive. Subsequently, the estate was released from its superintendence on 6 August 1920, and with effect from the same date there was a fresh assumption of superintendence under Section 12 of the new Court of Wards Act 1912, and there was a notification published in the Gazette in that month. Banke Bahadur Singh, the father of the present defendants, was declared to be a ward of the Court, and the entire estate was brought under the superintendence of the Court of Wards.

(3.) Between 1920 and 1922, the plaintiffs advanced some money to Banke Bahadur, who executed a sarkhat, dated 1 December 1922, which is the basis of the present suit. Banke Bahadur died in 1924, and the present suit was instituted against his sons in 1925. It is quite clear that Banke Bahadur, after his estate had been taken over by the Court of Wards was not competent to contract a debt and any money advanced to him was not legally recoverable. It is quite obvious that the view of the learned Munsif that the presumption under Section 16 was a rebuttable presumption is wrong. The section provides that the whole of moveable or immovable property of the ward shall be deemed to be under the superintendence of the Court of Wards. That section is imperative, and the presumption is not rebuttable.