Superintendence over property does not automatically categorize an heir as a Government Ward under the Court of Wards Act, allowing independent claims to inheritance without Court sanction.

1. The appellant, the original plaintiff - Rani Annapurnabai is widow of Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao Bhonsle. In this appeal, she has challenged the dismissal of her suit by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on the ground that the suit was filed in violation of the provisions of S.27 and S.30 of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act , i. e. Act No. XXIV of 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the Court of Wards Act ).

2. Certain facts leading to this litigation may be stated to appreciate the rival contentions between the parties.

3. In paragraph 1 of the plaint (Ex. 1), the appellant has given a genealogical table of the family of the late Shri Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao Bhonsle. The genealogy is as follows: -

4. The late Shri Raje Bahadur Raghujirao belonged to the Bhonsla family of ex - rulers of Nagpur and is governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law in respect of their joint family property. The late Shri Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao applied under S.6 of the Court of Wards Act that his whole estate should be taken over by the Court of Wards. The then Government of the Central Provinces and Berar indicated that his property would be taken under management on certain conditions. The Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao then wrote a letter on 11th of January 1926 to the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, agreeing to the Government proposal. Thereafter, on 12th of February 1925, the Governor in Council for the State Government issued a notification notifying that the Court of Wards will assume superintendence of property belonging to the Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao Bhonsle, Kunwar Fattesingh Rao Bhonsle and Kunwar Jaisingh Rao Bhonsle. Since then the property of the late Shri Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao has been under the superintendence of the Court of Wards.

5. The extent of the property as shown in various schedules filed with the plaint appears to be considerable. On 23rd of November 1953, the late Shri Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao purported to effect partition of the immoveable property of the joint family excluding immoveable property in the old Bombay State. This action seems to have been taken, as alleged in the plaint, in view of a notice given by Kunwar Jaisingh Rao in 1952 expressing his unequivocal intention to disrupt the joint family demanding partition and separate possession of his share in the estate. According to the averments in paragraph 5 of the plaint, all parties agreed to appoint Raje Pratapsingh Rao Bhonsle as Arbitrator for making division of their joint family property, but that arbitration did not come through due to some developments. Plaint also alleges that some document was executed by late Shri Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao on 23-11-1953, though it is styled as a will, but, in fact, was a partition.

6. The plaint gives a long history of the family after the conquest of the Bhonsla Rule by the British with which we are not immediately concerned.

7. Late Shri Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao died on 20th of May 1958 at Nagpur. Thereafter, the appellant served the defendants including the Court of Wards, Nagpur with a notice under S.26 of the Court of Wards Act , on or about 14-5-1959. Thereafter the present suit was filed by the appellant in forma pauperis on 18-9-1959. The application to sue as a pauper seems to have been hotly contested but ultimately, the trial Court granted permission to the appellant to sue as a pauper and the application has been registered as Civil Suit No. 16 of 1961.

8. On 9-12-1959, the Under - Secretary