Skip to content


Sri Thakurji and anr. Vs. Hira Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922All408; (1922)ILR44All634; 75Ind.Cas.335
AppellantSri Thakurji and anr.
RespondentHira Lal
Excerpt:
u.p. court of wards act (iv of 1912), section 55 applicability of - disqualified proprietor--manager of endowed property, status of. - - the plea was clearly untenable......claimed to be co-sharers of a mahal to which this land appertains. one of the plaintiffs is an idol whose property is under the management of ajodhya prasad. the other two plaintiffs are ajodhya prasad and baldeo prasad, whose property is under the management of the court of wards. there is another co-sharer, sheo prasad, whose property is also under the management of the court of wards. the allegation of the plaintiffs was that the defendant hira lal had taken wrongful possession of the disputed land and started making constructions thereon without any right. the defence of hira lal was that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of the disputed land and that he had been in possession thereof for more than twelve years. the court of first instance found against him and decreed.....
Judgment:

Lindsay and Kanhaiya Lal, JJ.

1. The dispute in this case relates to a plot of land situate in the village Sisamau in the Cawnpore district. The plaintiffs claimed to be co-sharers of a mahal to which this land appertains. One of the plaintiffs is an idol whose property is under the management of Ajodhya Prasad. The other two plaintiffs are Ajodhya Prasad and Baldeo Prasad, whose property is under the management of the Court of Wards. There is another co-sharer, Sheo Prasad, whose property is also under the management of the Court of Wards. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that the defendant Hira Lal had taken wrongful possession of the disputed land and started making constructions thereon without any right. The defence of Hira Lal was that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of the disputed land and that he had been in possession thereof for more than twelve years. The court of first instance found against him and decreed the claim. On appeal one of the pleas taken up for the first time on behalf of Hira Lal was that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit because their property was under the management of the Collector of Cawnpore as Manager of the Court of Wards. An issue was thereupon remitted by the lower appellate court to the court of first instance to ascertain whether the property of the plaintiffs was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards. The finding on that issue was that Ajodhya Prasad and Baldeo Prasad had been declared to be disqualified proprietors and that their property had been taken possession of by the Court of Wards under its superintendence along with that of Sheo Prasad. It was found, however, that the property of the idol, who is the first plaintiff, was not under the superintendence of the Court of Wards. On that finding the learned District Judge proceeded to dismiss the suit', holding that Ajodhya Prasad, who was the Sarbarahkar of the property of the idol; was not entitled to maintain the suit on behalf of the idol, any more than the other plaintiffs, under Section 55 of the Court of Wards Act (IV of 1912). That section has, however, no application to cases where a disqualified proprietor has no personal interest in the property by virtue of which a right to sue is claimed. His disability extends to the property lie owns and not to that which he holds as a trustee. A person who happens to be the manager of an endowed property is not the owner of that property and holds no beneficial interest therein. He cannot be regarded as a disqualified proprietor in regard to the property which he so holds as manager, and the idol, in whom the endowed property is supposed to be vested, cannot be treated as a ward within the meaning of Section 55 of the Act. The property of the idol was never in fact taken over by the Court of Wards under its management. The plea was clearly untenable. Indeed, as pointed out in Mannu v. Nasrat-ullah Khan Weekly Notes 1901 p. 36, one of the co-sharers can sue to eject a trespasser from the joint land, and the suit was maintainable.

2. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate court and remand the case under Order XLI, Rule 9,3, to that court with a direction to reinstate it (sic) its file of pending cases and dispose of it. according to law. The costs here and hitherto will abide the result.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //