9911796707
TMI Blog1908 (8) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rried out. The plaintiff says that she in May 1908 came to learn that the Court of Wards of Eastern Bengal intended to take possession of the estate. On the 3rd June 1908 that Court issued a notification assuming charge of the estate in suit, which was described to be the property of the minor. 2. It is of this order that the plaintiff complains. She says that the estate is vested in her as executrix and it is not the property of the minor so as to enable it to be taken possession of under the Court of Wards Act. She seeks to avoid a threatened interference with her possession. The suit is not against the Court of Wards, but against those defendants, who are sued in their individual capacity. The first defendant is a Deputy Collector at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n as the defendants are not sued in an admitted official capacity, but as individual trespassers. I think this contention is correct. But apart from this and assuming that the section was otherwise applicable, it would not, I think, apply, so as to render notice necessary so far as the suit seeks relief by injunction. The section doubtless says in suit but it also speaks of an act done and would not therefore apply to prohibit a suit for an injunction to restrain the commission of an act not done, but threatened to be done. And it has been so held. Were this not so a party would be deprived of relief: as the threatened act might and probably would take place before the expiry of the period of two months. I hold therefore that no notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther servants continued by the Court of Wards. This letter purports to be written on behalf of the Court of Wards and claims payment of rent. This was followed by a letter from the tenant to the plaintiff, in which he writes that he owes rents, but that as he has received a letter directing him to pay to the Court of Wards manager, he says: I cannot decide whether I should send rent to the said Babu. 5. I have not heard the plaintiff's Counsel's argument as to this part of the case and I express no opinion on it so far as it consists of the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses, as in my opinion a finding on it is immaterial, the Court possessing jurisdiction for the reasons to be stated. I may however in passing point out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A distinct threat has been made and attempted to be given effect to in respect of the estate without the jurisdiction, that is against an estate, a portion of which is within the local limits. It is not necessary, as I have said, that that threat should either have been made or attempted to be given effect to within the local limits or specifically with reference to property within those limits. I hold therefore that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. But then it is said that relief should be by ejectment it being contended that the Court of Wards have already taken possession, the amendment, which I allowed, being the subject of objection. Undoubtedly there has been a disturbance of possession. Some rents and other monies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court of Wards have clearly no right to take it from the plaintiff, in whom as executrix it is vested in law. It is contended further that the position created for the plaintiff by the will is that merely of a manager for the infant proprietor. But however this may be we must look at the grant of probate. Under that grant the plaintiff is the representative of the testator and the estate vests in her as such. But then it is said that, even assuming this to be so, proprietor in the Act does not mean a person representatively entitled, but the beneficiary, and that, as the minor is the ultimate beneficiary, the property is his notwithstanding that the estate has admittedly not yet been administered. I cannot however accept this contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be ground for an action for administration on behalf of the minor, but it is no ground for taking possession by the Court of. Wards. The argument even goes the length of asserting that the Court of Wards may determine, whether there has been mal-administration and on its own determination take possession of property vested in the executrix. No authority has been cited or any of these propositions, which appear to be clearly unsustainable. In my opinion the minor is not the proprietor of the estate so as to enable the Court of Wards to take possession of it. The plaintiff is then entitled to a declaration in terms of Clause 3 of the prayer of the plaint and to the injunction sought in Clauses 4-6 of the same. The plaintiff is entitled to re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
