Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (February 26, 1915) affirming a decree of the first Subordinate Judge of Midnapur.

The suit was instituted by the appellant against the respondent on May 31, 1912, for a declaration that two conveyances of immovable property dated June 7, 1890, and February 11, 1901, respectively were not binding upon her, and for possession of the properties. The facts appear from the judgment of their Lordships.

The first of ft large number of issues settled was, "Is the suit barred by limitation?" The Subordinate Judge ordered that issue to be tried first under Order XIV., r, 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He held that the suit was barred whether it fell within art. 142 (as he held that it did), or within art., 144 of Sched. I. of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.

The High Court upon appeal affirmed the decision, Save as to two villages which had been conveyed within twelve years of the suit being commenced.

88 Law Rep. 46 Ind. App. 60 ( 1918- 1919) Rani Kuar Mani Mandhata V. Nawab of Murshidabad

189

1918. Nov. 7, 8. De Gruyther K.C., and H. N. Sen for the appellant. Time did not run against the suit while the property was under the charge of the Court of Wards. Under s. 35 of the Court of Wards Act, 1879, the Court of Wards had possession, though not adversely to the proprietors within the 3 meaning of art. 144 of Sched.1 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and under Part VII., of the Act the proprietors could not themselves sue or be sued see ss. 51,55 and Kumar Biseswar Roy v. Kumar Shoshi Roy. (( 1889) L. R. 17 I. A. 5.) No suit by the proprietors against the Court of Wards to obtain a release of the property was maintainable. The principle of Tukaram v. Sujangir (( 1884) I. L. R. 8 B. 585) applies, namely, that time does not run against a plaintiff while his property is in the custody of the law, and he is not legally able to sue for its possession. The order taking the property into charge was made under s. 6 (a) of the Act of 1879. The Subordinate Judge wrongly held that s. 6 (e), added by Bengal Act IV. of 1892, s. 3, was applicable, and that the proprietors had the powers given by that Act. No declaration under s. 56 (e) of that Act was made.

Dunne K. C., and Kenworthy Brown for the respondent. Time began to run, both under art., 142 and art., 144, when the purchaser got possession, and the suit was consequently barred. It is conceded that the order was made under s. 6 (a) and not under s. 6 (e), but no title vested in the Court of Wards the possession was on behalf of the proprietors and was analogous to that of a receiver, with statutory powers of management. [Reference was made to ss. 5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 18, 35 of the Act of 1879.] There was no disability expressly or impliedly recognised by the Indian Limitation Act.

De Gruyther K.C. replied.

Dec. 3. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR LAWRENCE JENKINS. Raja Prithwi Nath Singh Mandhata died on October 4, 1882, without male issue and was succeeded by his two widows. At his death he was heavily indebted, and on March 1, 1886, the widows presented a petition to the Commissioner of their division praying that he would recommend the Court of Wards to take charge of the estate. On July 30, 1886, the Court of Wards under s. 27 of the Court of Wards Act, 1879, declared the widows to be disqualified proprietors under s. 6 (a) of the Act, and by the same order declared under s. 35 that it had determined to take under its charge the property of the widows and directed that possession be taken of the property on behalf of the Court.

On June 7, 1890, a part of the property called Killa Nazagram was sold to the defendants father and predecessor in title, and the transfer was executed by the Collector. The purchaser obtained possession- admittedly not later than April 30, 1891. The defendants father subsequently obtained a transfer of two villages called Pirote and Sukdubi, and this was executed by the Collector on