9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Authority of Court of Wards to sue on behalf of a minor for recovery of mortgage debt. 2. Validity of the alleged agreement between Gauri Debi and the defendant regarding the mortgage debt. Analysis: 1. The suit was brought by the Court of Wards on behalf of a minor, Ramratan Tewari, to recover a mortgage debt. The defendant argued that the Court of Wards had no authority to sue on behalf of the minor and that the suit was not maintainable. Both lower courts held that the Court of Wards had the power to bring the suit on behalf of the minor, who was found to be a minor, and decreed the plaintiff's claim with costs. The defendant appealed, questioning the authority of the Court of Wards to proceed. The High Court held that the Court of Wards had full authority to act under the relevant provisions of the Court of Wards Act, 1879, and to take possession of the property as the guardian of the minor. Therefore, the manager under the Court of Wards had the power to institute the suit, and the objection raised disputing the Court of Wards' authority was dismissed. 2. The defendant also contended that an agreement between Gauri Debi and the defendant regarding the mortgage debt had extinguished the right to sue on the mortgage bond. Both lower courts rejected the document evidencing this agreement as inadmissible in evidence due to lack of registration. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that the registration of the document was necessary under the Registration Act and that the document, not being registered, was inadmissible in evidence. The High Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the defendant's counsel and confirmed the judgment and decree of the lower court, dismissing the appeal with costs.
|
