1. These two second appeals arise out of suits in ejectment instituted on behalf of a minor whose estate is under the Management of the Court of Wards. The questions of fact arising in the case are concluded by the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
2. The only question of law raised in these second appeals is that referred to as Point No. 1 in paragraph 2 of the lower appellate Court's judgment, namely, whether in view of the provisions of Section 52 of the Court of Wards Act, these suits are maintainable in the absence of express sanction from the Court of Wards.
3. I may at the outset state that I am not by any means satisfied that the provisions of Chapter VI of the Court of Wards Act are provisions which third parties can take advantage of. They are primarily meant for the benefit of the ward and not for the benefit of third parties, though some of them may impose restraints upon third parties in the interests of the ward. The provision in Section 52 can by no means be regarded as taking away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with the matter, whatever responsibility a manager might incur if he should institute a suit in contravention of the provisions of Section 52. The proviso to that section that to avoid the bar of limitation a manager may file a suit even before obtaining the sanction of the Court of Wards is itself an indication that restrictions of this kind cannot reasonably be regarded as matters going to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It is not however necessary to come to any final conclusion on this aspect of the matter, because the documentary evidence in the case suffices to establish that the suit has been instituted with, proper authority. The authorisation required by Section 52 is no doubt stated to be one from the Court of Wards but Section 8 provides not merely that the Court may exercise its powers through the District Collectors but also that it may confer its powers on any such Collector.
4. As regards institution of suits on behalf of the Ward, the provision in Rule 137 of the Madras Court of Wards Manual is to the effect that when difficult or doubtful points of law or special important issues are involved, the manager should obtain the sanction of the Collector before instituting the suit and whenever in the Collector's opinion, the matter is of sufficient importance, the Court's sanction should be obtained. Even if the above had stood by itself, an authorisation by the Collector would be good because the rule leaves it to his discretion as to whether or not he should obtain the Court's sanction in a particular case. In the notes to that rule, reference has been made to Proceedings No. 3674 dated 14th November, 1893 and to Proceedings No. 48 dated 4th September, 1911, the result of which is stated as follows:
When the Court of Wards has approved the institution of a suit and the draft plaint to be filed in it, Collectors may themselves authorise the institution of suits in similar and connected cases arising subsequently.
5. This is apparently what happened in the present case. Ex. M shows that the. Collector has been in correspondence with the Court of Wards in respect of steps to be taken for the recovery of several items of land belonging to the temple under the management of the ward. Suits were sanctioned in respect of some items but it was apparently expected at that time that in respect of one item now in suit a litigation might not be necessary if the present defendant in O.S. No. 920 of 1929 would agree to execute a lease in respect of the land in his possession. This was apparently not done and hence both the suits now before me had to be instituted. Ex. M-1 shows that the District Collector took upon himself the responsibility of sanctioning the institution of these two suits. Reading Exs. M and M-1 together, it is obvious that the Collector acted in accordance with the Court of Wards proceedings above set out, because there can be very little doubt that these suits are similar to the ones whose institution had been sanctioned by the Court of Wards as recorded in Ex. M.
6. The Lower Appellate Court was therefore right in holding that the suits have been instituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 52 of the Court of Wards Act.
7. The Second Appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed with costs.
8. Leave to appeal is refused.