The validity of a decree cannot be challenged in execution proceedings if the civil Court had jurisdiction to pass the decree.

Pollock, J—On 10-4-1931, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents in this Court, hereinafter referred to as the decree-holder, instituted a suit against Lal Nagendra Shah, Zamindar, Bindra Nawagarh, for the recovery of as. 5453-15-0.

2. In November of' that year the Court of Wards assumed superintendence of Lai Nagendra Shah's estate, and a notification under Section 10(1), Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, announcing the assumption of superintendence was published in the Central Provinces Gazette of 7-11-1931. A notification under Section 12(1) of this Act calling upon all persons having claims against the ward or his immovable property to submit them in writing within 6 months was published in the Central Provinces Gazette on 21st November. On 2nd December the Court was informed by the Deputy Commissioner that the Court of Wards had assumed superintendence of the defendant's estate, and an application was made to allow the defendant to 'be sued through the Court of Wards. The plaint was amended accordingly and the Court of Wards was shown as the guardian ad litem of the defendant. Subsequently on 3-8-1932 the defendant made an oral statement contending that the claim should be deemed to have been discharged under Section 12(2) of the Act on the ground that the claim had not been submitted within 6 months as required by Section 12(1).

3. On 30-8-1932, however, the parties agreed that the claim should be compromised, and a decree was passed in accordance with the terms of that compromise directing the defendant to pay Rs. 3406-3-0 by 15-12-1932, with interest at 7 per cent. per annum in case of default from the date of suit till satisfaction, costs to be borne as incurred.

When the decree-holder took out execution the defendant, still represented by the Court of Wards, contended that the direction in the decree to pay interest was illegal and unenforceable. It was admitted that the decree-holder submitted his claim to the Court of Wards on 4-8-1932 after the lapse of more than 6 months from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 12(1) and that this delay was condoned by the Court of Wards under the proviso to Section 12(2).

4. The argument was that under that proviso any claim received after the lapse of 6 months shall cease to carry interest and that the Court acted illegally in awarding interest, even though the parties consented to this. It is somewhat surprising that the Deputy Commissioner of Raipur, acting on behalf of the Court of Wards, should try to go back in this way on a compromise that was a very reasonable one.

5. It was held in Ganeshlal v. Dhondiba that Section 12, Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, has no application if a civil suit has been filed before the Court of Wards assumes superintendence of the estate. Even if that is not so and a claim has to be submitted in writing under Section 12(1); then it appears to me that there was a sufficient compliance with the requirements of that section when the Court of Wards was made guardian ad litem to the defendant in this suit on 2-12-1931. Apart from that, however, it is not disputed that the civil Court had power to decide the suit.

6. It might have been open to the defendant in that suit to raise the contention, as in fact he did, that the claim must be deemed to have been discharged under Section 12(2) on the ground that the claim had not been submitted in time, and it would then have been for the Court to decide that point. That contention, however, was abandoned, and the Court therefore had jurisdiction,' in my opinion, to pass the decree that it passed on the consent of the parties.

7. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to pass that decree or not, it seems to me clear that the validity of the decree cannot be challenged in execution proceedings. It may be that in oases where the decree is on the face of it contrary to law its validity can be challenged in execution proceedings but I entirely agree with the view expressed by