Ryves and Daniels, JJ.
1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are as follows:
2. Ibrahim Ali Khan owned property, some of which is in wait. He died leaving 3 sons and 3 daughters, one of whom was Musammat Batul-un-nissa who was entitled to l/9th of the property owned by Ibrahim Ali Khan at his death. She died leaving a sou Anwar-ul-Hasan, who became entitled to 2/3rds of the 1/9th share inherited by his mother. He sold his share to Muhib Ali, who sold to Mazhar Husain, who in turn sold to the plaintiff. This is a suit by the plaintiff for declaration and for possession of the property. The defendant No. 1. is Anwar-ul-Hasan, the transferor of the property. Defendants 2 to 9 are the persons who represent the sons and daughters of Ibrahim Ali Khan. Defendants 10 to 25 are subsequent transferees from the sons of these defendants. Nos. 22 to 25 are wards under the Court of Wards. Defendants 22 to 25 alone contested the suit, on the ground that the notice required by Section 54 of the Court of Wards Act (Act No. IV of 191.2 of the local legislature) had not been duly served. This plea was upheld in both courts and an ex parte decree was passed against defendants 1 to 21 and the suit was dismissed as against defendants 22 to 25. The plaintiff brings this appeal on two grounds. Firstly, it is argued that, inasmuch as Mazhar Husain, who sold the property to the plaintiff, had given notice of his intention to bring a suit similar to this one against the Court of Wards, that notice enured for the benefit of the plaintiff.
3. Secondly, that in any case Section 54 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act was not applicable, because the suit did not relate to 'the property' of the wards.
4. With regard to the first plea it is only necessary to say that the riding in Bachchu Singh v. The Secretary of State for India in Council (1902) I.L.R. 23 All. 187 is conclusive.
5. On the second plea it seems to us that, on the allegation in the plaint itself in paragraph 12, the plaintiff admits that the wards have an interest in the property. The ruling on which he relies, namely Lal Singh v. The Collector of Etah (1914) I.L.R. 36 All. 331 has no application. There the property did not belong to the ward but to the judgment-debtor of the ward, and the mere fact that the ward had attached that property did not create any right in the property in the ward. The very fact that the plaintiff has appealed from the decree of the first court dismissing the Suit as against the wards shows clearly that the plaintiff himself realized that the suit does relate to the property of the wards. In our opinion the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.