JUDGMENT

Bennett, J - This revision application under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act, raises some important question. It is made by a defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Lucknow, on 28rd December 1941 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for a sum of Rs. 476-13-9. The plaintiff, Madan Gopal, is a cloth merchant of Lucknow. He sued the Deputy Commissioner of Bara Banki in charge of the Court of Wards, Bhatwamau Estate, No. 1, Bara Banki, to recover a sum of Rs. 705-2-3 alleged to be due from Mr. Shahenshah Husain, a ward of the Court of Wards, Bhatwamau Estate No. l, on account of cloth purchased between loth December 1936, and 1st December 1937. The total sum claimed was made up of Rs. 476-13-9, price of cloth, with interest thereon. A promissory note had been executed by Mr. Shahenshah Husain for Rupees 664-7-0 on llth May 1940, this being made up of the balance of Rs. 476-13-9 due and interest on that sum. The difference between the amount of the promissory note and the amount claimed represents interest accrued subsequent to the execution of the promissory note. The suit was decreed by the lower Court for the principal sum of Rs. 476-13-9 only.

2. It was stated in the plaint that the costs of all the cloth purchased between the dates given was Rs. 923-7-0 and that Mr. Shahenshah Husain, had paid only Rs. 446-9-3 towards this amount, leaving the balance of Rs. 476-13-9. It was also stated in the plaint that the cause of action accrued on llth May 1940 that being the date when the promissory note was executed. 22nd July 1941, is also mentioned as another date on which the cause of action accrued, that being the date of the expiry of the period of two months' notice given under the Court of Wards Act.

3. It appears that one of the defences taken-was that two months' notice had not been given as provided by the Act, and there was an issue on this point., Subsequently, it was admitted that notice had been given. At the outset of his arguments for the defendant in the present application learned Counsel submitted nevertheless that the notice was defective in that according to it the period of the transactions between the parties was from 10th December 1936 to 13th September 1937 whereas according to the plaint the period is from loth December 1936, to 1st December 1937. In view however of the fact that this objection was not raised before and is not covered by the issue about notice the objection was not pressed. The other two points taken on behalf of the defendant were that the cloth was not supplied to Mr. Shahen shah Husain for necessity, and that the suit was not brought within limitation. There were issues which covered both these points and the Court below found in favour of the plaintiff on both. For the plaintiff, it was conceded that the suit could not be brought on foot of the promissory note in view of the provisions of Section 37, Court of Wards Act. The plaintiff's counsel contended however that the promissory note could be taken into consideration as an acknowledgment of the debt for the purpose of limitation under Section 20, Limitation Act. It is not disputed that Mr. Shahenshah Husain was under the Court of Wards prior to the date on which the transactions under consideration started, and that he receives from the Court of Wards a sum of Rs. 200 a month as maintenance allowance. The first question which arises on these facts is whether the ward was competent to assume liability in respect of the cloth taken by him from the plaintiff, having regard to the provisions of Clause (a) of Section 87, Court of Wards Act. The first part of this clause reads as follows:

A ward shall not be competent-(a) to transfer or create any charge on, or interest in, any part of Ms property which is under the superintendence of the Court of Wards, or to enter into any contract which may involve him in pecuniary liability.

4. As I have mentioned it is not disputed that the ward was not