Back
1916 Supreme(SC) 12
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND SIR LAWRENCE JENKINS.
DEBI BAKHSH SINGH - Appellant
Versus
SHADI LAL - Respondents
On Appeal From The Judicial Commissioner of Oudh.
Decided On : Mar. 14. 1916.
Solicitors for appellant: T. L. Wilson & Co.
Property under the superintendence of the Court of Wards is protected from execution of decrees arising from contracts entered into during the period of superintendence, and this protection continues even after the property is released from such superintendence.
Headnote:(A) Oudh Land Revenue Act, 1876 - Sections 173 and 174 - Property under superintendence of Court of Wards - Execution of decree - Contract entered into during period of superintendence - Protection of property - Section 174 provides that no property shall be liable to be taken in execution of a decree made in respect of any contract entered into by a person while his property is under such superintendence - The object of these sections is the protection of the property against transactions and consequences of execution in respect of contracts entered into by a person under tutelage - The phrase "while his property is under such superintendence" is elucidative of the contract entered into, not the timing of the execution - If a contract incurring debt occurred during the period of superintendence, the property is protected against execution in respect of any decree following upon that transaction, regardless of whether the property has since been released.
Facts of the case:
A person whose property was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards borrowed money. After the property was released from such superintendence, the creditors obtained a personal decree for the debt. Subsequently, the creditors sought to execute the decree by the sale of a village which had formed part of the property under superintendence. The successor to the debtor objected to the execution based on the statutory protection provided for property under superintendence.
Findings of Court:
The property is protected from execution if the underlying contract was entered into while the property was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards. A decree based on such a contract cannot be executed against the property even after its release from superintendence.
Issues: Whether a decree obtained in respect of a contract made by a person whose property was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards can be executed against said property after it has been released from such superintendence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 174 of the Act is intended to protect property from the consequences of execution for contracts made during the period of tutelage. The protection applies to the property itself if the contract was made during the period of superintendence, and this protection persists even after the property is released, as the statute focuses on when the contract was entered into rather than when the execution is sought.
Result: Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land revenue law
-
court of wards
-
protection of property
- execution of decrees
-
protection of property
-
court of wards
Judgement
Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh (November 12, 1913) affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich (June 4, 1913).
Maneshwar Bakhsh Singh, while his property was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards under the OUDH LAND REVENUE ACT (XVII. of 1876), borrowed certain money from the respondents. The property was released from superintendence in 1898. The respondents subsequently instituted a suit to recover the amount due, and after protracted litigation obtained a decree. Meanwhile, in 1911, Maneshwar Bakhsh Singh died and was succeeded by his son, the present appellant. In 1913 the respondents applied to the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich for execution of their decree by the sale of a village which had formed part of the property under superintendence. The appellant objected, relying upon s. 174 of the OUDH LAND REVENUE ACT , 1876, but his objection was disallowed. Upon appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner the decision of the Subordinate Judge was affirmed. Sects. 173 and 174 of the Act are set out in the judgment.
1916. March 13. De Gruyther, K.C., and Kyffin, for the appellant. Upon the true construction of s. 174 of the OUDH LAND REVENUE ACT , 1876, a decree in respect of a contract made by a person whose property is under superintendence of the Court of Wards cannot be executed
Law. Rep. 43 Ind. App. 69 ( 1915- 1916)
Debi Bakhsh Singh V. Shadi Lal 2
against the property under superintendence even after its release. A construction contrary to that contended for would to a large extent nullify the beneficial effect of both ss. 173 and 174. Sect. 205b, added to the North West Provinces Land Revenue Act (XIX. of 1873) by Act VIII. of 1879, s. 24, is in precisely the same terms as ss. 173 and 174 now under consideration. In Himanchal Singh v. Jhamman Lal (( 1900) I. L. R. 22 Allah. 364.) the High Court at Allahabad construed s. 205b as now contended for, and the same construction of s. 174 was adopted by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in Ram Parshad v. Musammat Muna Kuar . (( 1901) 4 Oudh Cases, 28.) In the present case the Court followed a dictum in Rameshar Bakhsh Singh v. Dhanpal Dus (( 1910) 14 Oudh Cases, 6.), in which case the present question only arose indirectly. [ Jhamman Lal v. Himanchal Singh (( 1901) I. L. R. 24 Allah. 136.) was also referred to.]
The respondents did not appear.
March 14. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE. By s. 162 of the OUDH LAND REVENUE ACT (XVII. of 1876) certain persons are declared to be disqualified from managing their estates. Among the enumeration of those persons are the following Under sub-s. (g), " Persons declared by the Chief Commissioner on their own application to be disqualified from managing their estates." The taluqdar of Mallanpur was one of those persons, On his application, his estates were assumed by the Court of Wards, and they remained under the management of that Court from the year 1886 until the year 1898.
During that period the taluqdar borrowed certain sums of money; and on August 12, 1904, his creditors sued and obtained a personal decree against him in the Court of first instance. There were certain judicial proceedings which occurred subsequent to the decree; and it may be of interest to note that, the debt incurred having been originally a sum of Rs. 4000, execution was sought to be obtained against the property put under the management of the Court of Wards for the sum of Rs. 21,526, the interest having been running for a certain course of years at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum.
The question in this case, and the sole question, is whether the decree so obtained can be put in execution against the property which was, at the date of the contraction of the debt, under the management of the Court of Wards.
The sections of the OUDH LAND REVENUE ACT to which reference has been made are ss. 173 and 174. Sect. 173 is in th
