JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council filed by Thakur Jai Indar Bahadur Singh and his wife Rani Raj Rajeshri Dei against a judgment of this Court dated 26th April 1935, Reported in AIR 1935 Oudh 486 dismissing the appeal of the applicants. The facts out of which this application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council arises are as follows:

2. On 22nd February 1934, Thakur Jai Indar Bahadur Singh, taluqdar of Mahewa in the district of Kheri, and his senior wife Rani Raj Rajeshri Dei, filed a suit on the original side of this Court, which was registered as Suit No. 1 of 1934, against 527 persons on the allegation that the amounts of debt shown due to the defendants in the list of creditors filed in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner of Kheri in the course of proceedings under Section 9, U.P. Court of Wards Act (Act 4 of 1912), were wrong, and claiming damages against the defendants for having conspired to injure the plaintiffs. On 11th May 1934, by notification in the U.P. Gazette, the ' Local Government declared Thakur Jai Indar Bahadur Singh to be a disqualified proprietor under Clause (d), Sub-section (1), Section 8, U.P. Court of Wards Act, and under Clause (c), Sub-section 1, Section 8 of the said Act Rani Raj Rajeshri Dei was also declared to be a disqualified proprietor. On 24th May 1934, the Court of Wards assumed superintendence of the Mahewa Estate under Section 15, Court of Wards Act, and on 24th July 1934, the Deputy Commissioner, an ex-officio Manager of the Court of Wards, in charge of the Mahewa Estate, applied to this Court that his name may be brought on the record of Suit No. 1 of 1934 as plaintiff in place of the two original plaintiffs. Substitution of names was ordered as prayed for and on 20th August 1934, the original plaintiffs, the applicants before us, filed an application in the trial Court alleging that the notification of the assumption of the superintendence of' the Mahewa Estate by the Court of Wards was ultra vires and praying that their names should be allowed to remain on the record as plaintiffs, the Deputy Commissioner, as ex officio manager of the Court of Wards, being added as a co-plaintiff. Before this application could be disposed of, the Deputy Commissioner of Kheri, as ex-officio Manager of the Court of Wards of the Mahewa Estate, applied on 12th September 1934 to withdraw the suit. This application and the application of the original plaintiffs were disposed of at the same time by our learned brother Bisheshar Nath, J. and he dismissed the application of the disqualified proprietors of the Mahewa Estate praying that their names be retained as plaintiffs in the original suit and he allowed the application of the Deputy Commissioner praying for the withdrawal of that suit.

3. An appeal was filed before a Bench of this Court against this order of the learned Single Judge mentioned above. The Deputy Commissioner of Kheri, as Manager of the Court of Wards, filed an application alleging that the appeal filed by the present applicants was incompetent and that in fact no appeal lay against the order of the Single Judge of this Court dated 2nd January 1935. This application was allowed and the appeal filed by the present applicants was dismissed with costs on 26th April 1935 [see AIR 1935 Oudh 486] by a Bench to which one of us was a party. Against this order of the Bench the applicants pray for permission for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. We have heard the learned Counsel of both parties at some length. In the first place, the applicants being both disqualified proprietors of the Mahewa Estate cannot maintain the present application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council, because under Section 55, U.P. Court of Wards Act (Act 4 of 1912), no ward can sue or be sued in any civil Court nor can any proceedings be taken in any civil Court otherwise than by and in the name of the Collector in charge of the property of such ward,