RANI DRIG RAJ KUER versus RAJA SRI AMAR KRISHNA NARAIN SINGH

Citation: [1960] 2 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 14-12-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
--
-
8.0.:R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
431 
\ 
RANI DRIG RAJ KUER 
v. 
RAJA SRI AMAR KRISHNA NARAIN SINGH 
(S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and K. SUBBA RAO, JJ.) 
Court of W ards-Estaies of appellant and respondent both in 
charge of Court of Wards-Statute providing for appointment . of 
representatives of such wards-Failure to appoint representatives-,.' 
Settlement of appeal by Court of Wards and compromise decree 
thereon-Validity of-Whether provisions of statute mandatory-
U.P. Court of Wards Act, z9z2, (U.P. 4 of z9z2), s. 56, Code of 
Civil Procedure, z908 (5 of z908), 0. XXXII. 
The respondent, proprietor of Ramnagar Estate, filed a suit 
against the appellant, proprietor of Ganeshpur Estate, for the 
recovery of certain properties. The appellant filed a cross-suit 
against the respondent. During the pendency of the suits the 
appellant was declared to be a person of unsound mind and the 
Court of Wards assumed superintendence of her properties undet 
the U. P. Court of Wards Act, and placed them in charge of the 
Deputy Commissioner of Barabanki. Thereupon the cause titles 
oi the suits were amended and in place of the appellant's name 
the 'Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki I/C Court of Wards 
Ganeshpur Estate' was substituted. The Trial Court partly 
decreed the respondent's suit and dismissed the appelltmt's suit. 
Both parties preferred appeals to the High Court. While the 
appeals were pending the Court of Wards took over the Estate of 
the respondent also and placed it also in charge of the Deputy 
Commissioner, Barabanki. The c;ause· titles of the appeals were 
then amended and for the name of the respondent, the name 
'Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki I/C Court of Wards Ramnagar 
Estate' was substituted. Thereafter, the Court of Wards passed 
a resolution settling the appeal on certain terms and under its 
instructions the lawyers for the parties presented petitions to the 
High Court for recording compromises in the appeals. The High 
Court passed decrees in tei·ms of the compromises. Shortly 
afterwards the Court of Wards released the two estates. Later; 
the appellant recovered from her affliction and was declared to 
be of sound mind. She presented two applications to the High 
Court alleging that the compromise decrees were a nullity and 
praying for a proper disposal of the appeals. The High .Court 
rejected the applications. The appellant co.ntended that the 
compromise decrees were a nullity (i) as the Court of Wards hag 
not complied with the mandatory provisions of s. 56 of the Act, 
(ii) as there could not in law be a compromise unless there were 
two parties but in this case there was only one. party the Deputy 
Commissioner, Barabanki and (iii) as. the High Court failed to 
appoint a ·disinterested person as guardian of the appellai1f wh.o 
• 
,, .. --:?' •· . 
.,:,_.,:, .. ::' 
r959 
·December r4 
• 
1959 
Rani Drig Raj 
KUer 
v. 
Raja Sri 
A.may Krishna 
Narain Singh 
• 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] 
was of unsound mind under 0. XXXII of the Code of Civil 
Procedure. 
Held, (per S. K. Das and A. K. Sarkar, JJ ), that the 
compromise decrees were not a nullity and were binding on the 
parties. 
Section 56 of the Act which provided that when in a suit 
or proceeding two or more wards had conflicting interests, " the 
Court of Wards shall appoint for each such ward a representa-
tive" to conduct or defend the case on .behalf of the ward whom 
he represented was clearly direct and the failure of the Court of 
Wards to observe the provisions thereof did not render the 
compromise decrees a nullity. A directory provision did not give 
discretionary ·power to do or not to do the thing directed; it was 
intended to be obeyed but a failure to obey it did not render a 
thing duly done in disobedience of it a nullity . 
. When the appeals were compromised, the compromise 
betw.een the parties to the appeals, namely, the appellant and 
the respondent. It was not a compromise which the Deputy 
Commissioner, Barabanki, .made with himself though he repre-
sented both the parties. There was nothing in the Act which 
indicated that the Court of Wards did not have the power of 
making a contract between two wards. 
The Deputy Commissioner, Barabanki had been appointed 
the guardian of the appellant under the Act, and he was entitled 
to act as her guardian for the appeals under 0. XXXII, r. 4 of 
the Code., The Court of Wards was different from a private 
guardian and could be trusted to be impartial. The

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.