Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR223; 55Ind.Cas.831
..... his estate was in charge of the court of wards; that a notice calling for submission of claims was published in the government gazette of the 6th june 1907; that the defendant did not submit his claim as a mortgagee within six months as required by the said notice; that, therefore, notice was issued to the defendant to give up possession of the land on the 25th october 1913 under the bombay land revenue code; that possession was taken of the land on the 3rd june 1914 in the presence of the panch; that defendant took ..... the defendant denied the claim and alleged that the notice did not bind him; that section 14 of the court of wards act did not bind him, nor did it entitle the plaintiff to maintain the present suit against him, a mortgagee in possession. ..... under section 14 (1) the notice would be published in the government gazette and in such other manner as the governor-in-council may, by general or special order, direct, and i think our best course is to send a copy of the proceedings in this case and our judgment to government, suggesting that some special order should be made under section 14 (1) of the court of wards act with regard to the further publication of notices calling for claims under that section. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR943; 58Ind.Cas.319
..... it has been argued before us that under the proviso to section 16 of the bombay court of wards act that letter could not be proved. ..... the matter of importance and of some difficulty which has been argued at the hearing of this appeal, relates to the meaning of the proviso to section 16 of the court of wards act (bom. ..... defendant was a minor and a ward of the collector court of; wards act (bom. ..... sections 13,1,4, 15 and 16 deal with the duties of the collector when the court of wards assumes superintendence of the property of any landholder under the act. ..... sub-section (3) provides that nothing in the section shall be construed to bar the institution of a suit in a civil court for the recovery of a claim against a government, ward or his property which has been duly submitted to the court of 'wards. ..... as it has not been distinctly provided that such a decision or proposal or offer by the court of wards shall not be used as an acknowledgment, we think it is open to the claimant to make use of such a decision merely for the purposes of an acknowledgment. ..... then comes a proviso: 'provided that no decision of the court of wards under this section shall be proved in any such suit as against the defendant.'2. ..... act i of 1905). .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR619; 58Ind.Cas.205
..... the point for decision is whether sections 31 and 32 of the bombay court of wards act are applicable to this suit. ..... by the gujarat talukdars' act and court, of wards act the right to sue a talukdar in the one case and a government ward in the other, is left unaffected, except in certain specified cases with which we are not now concerned; though suits against the court of wards and officers acting thereunder are broadly speaking prohibited by section 45 of the court of wards act. ..... the manager under the gujarat talukdars' act is to divide the surplus receipts amongst the talukdars (section 29)(3)); the manager under the court of wards act disposes of the entire profits in a manner similar to that of a guardian (sections 23 to 27 of the court of wards act). ..... but if the policy of the gujarat talukdars' act is different; if that act contemplates the talukdar himself as the real litigant; in other words if it regards a suit like the present as in substance and in reality a suit against the talukdar personally; then to apply sections 31 and 32 of the court of wards act would be to go clean against the policy of the gujarat talukdars' act.6. ..... the particular reason which appeals to my mind is this, in the case of talukdars there is not, as in the case of government wards, the same need for such provisions as sections 31 and 32 of the court of wards act contain: for the severance of the talukdar from his estate is less complete, the management is of a more restricted kind. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR189
..... on april 22, the latter made the following order :-in accordance with the authority granted by the district judge, poona, on april 9, 1925, the court of wards, central division, hereby assumes the temporary management of the property of shrimant yeshwantrao khanderao dabhade in the mawal taluka of the poona district, and authorises the collector of poona to take steps for the temporary custody and protection of that property under section 19(2) of the bombay court of wards act, 1 of 1905.3. ..... in the result i am of opinion that the district court is, not authorized by section 10 to provide for the assumption of the superintendence of any property in the sense in which that expression is used in the bombay court of wards act, 1905; and that the order under section 10 did not attract section 37, nor has the effect of rendering the defendant incompetent to enter into contracts involving him in pecuniary liability. ..... , the defendant 'in the mawal taluka of the poona district, and authorises the collector of poona, to take steps for the temporary custody and protection of that property, under section 19(2) of the bombay court of wards act of 1905'. ..... , a person of whose property the court of wards had for the time being the superintendence, under the bombay court of wards act (bom. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1937Bom266
..... in the result i am of opinion that the district court is not authorized by section 10 to provide for the assumption of the superintendence of any property in the sense in which that expression is used in the bombay court of wards act, 1905; and that the order under section 10 did not attract section 37, nor has the effect of rendering the defendant incompetent to enter into contracts involving him in pecuniary liability. ..... on 22nd april the latter made the following order:in accordance with the authority granted by the district judge, poona, on 9th april 1925, the court of wards, central division, hereby assumes the temporary management of the property of shrimant yeshwantrao khanderao dabhade in the mawal taluka of the poona district, and authorises the collector of poona to take steps for the temporary custody and protection of that property under section 19(2), bombay court of wards act, 1 of 1905.4. ..... , a person of whose property the court of wards had for the time being the superintendence, under the bombay court of wards act (bom. ..... accordingly on 10th july 1926, a resolution was passed by the government according sanction to the assumption by the court of wards of the superintendence of the property of the sardar upon which the court of wards assumed superintendence of the property of the sardar on 16th july 1926, and a notification to that effect was published in the bombay government gazette, dated 22nd july 1926, as required by the provisions of section 13 of the act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1947Bom33; (1946)48BOMLR616
..... section 32 of the bombay court of wards act, 1905, is in the following terms:-subject to the provisions of the second paragraph of section 440 of the code of civil procedure ..... 700 and whether section 82 of the bombay court of wards act is applicable to suits brought against a government ward before the superintendence of his property was assumed by the court of wards.the question is really one, and the statement of it in the reference represents two aspects of ..... would answer it therefore by saying that section 32 of the bombay court of wards act is applicable to pending suits brought against a government ward before the superintendence of his property was assumed by the court of wards, and that the rulings of this court in hari govind v. ..... the opponent that the bengal court of wards act is not identical in terms with the bombay court of wards act. ..... be no doubt that section 32 of the court of wards act applies to suits instituted after the court of wards has assumed superintendence of the property of a ward, and it would be strange if, when the court of wards must be named as the next friend or guardian of the ward in a suit filed after the order by which superintendence is taken, yet it is not necessary for the court of wards to be named as the next friend or guardian if the suit chances to have been filed a day or two before the formal order by which superintendence is assumed. ..... the bengal act, just as under the bombay act, the property of a ward does not vest in the court of wards .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom170; (1951)53BOMLR877; ILR1952Bom123
..... 14(1) of the bombay court of wards act, 1905, applies to money claims only and can have no application to claims relating to immoveable property. ..... [1] this second appeal raises a question under s 14, bombay court of wards act, 1905, and the facts giving rise to the suit out of which the appeal arises are briefly these. ..... now, it is to be remembered that under section 46, court of wards act, power is given to frame rules, and rules have been framed under section 46 and they are called the bombay court of wards rules, 1908. ..... from this point of view the court of wards has to make up its mind and it could not be the intention of the act to place the court of wards in management of the property whore it is not in the interests of the landholder himself to place the proptrty in tb'e management of the court of wards, because by taking up the management of the property, the court of wards is taking up a liability. ..... court of wards act, that the plaintiffs had proved that they were the heirs of laxman, that the defendants did not prove that the alienation was for legal necessity. ..... they, therefore, claimed possession of the property with manse profits and costs[5] defendants 1 to 8 resisted the plaintiffs' suit, contending that the alienation was supported by legal necessity and that the plaintiffs' claim was barred both under section 14 and section 31, court wards act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1217; (1978)3SCC188; [1978]3SCR789
..... the state government assumed management of the estate under the bombay court of wards act, 1905 and appointed the collector as the manager of the estate ..... since the provisions of section 1 to 87a of the bombay act were not applicable to the plaintiffs estate from 1-8-1956 to 11-5-1958, and the tenancy expired on 31-5-1957, it was held that there was no subsisting lease on 11-5-1958 and the high court was right in taking the view that the defendants had failed to establish that they had become statutory owners of the land by virtue of the first proviso to section 88 read with section 32 and 32f as amended under the amending act no, 13 of 1956 (vide pages 795-796).10 ..... by an amendment of the act which came into force on 1st august, 1956, lands taken under management of court of wards were excluded from the implication of the act and, therefore, the act was not applicable to the suit lands between 1st august, 1956 and 11th may, 1958, when the court of wards withdrew its superintendence.37 ..... section 133 corresponding to section 85a of the bombay act may be quoted here :suits involving issues required to be decided under this act :(1) if any suit instituted in any civil court involves any issues which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any authority competent to settle, decide or deal with such issues under this act (hereinafter referred to as the 'competent authority'), the civil court shall stay the suit and refer such issues to such competent authority for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR1423
..... theundisputed facts are that the suit properties belonged to sardar mahaboob alikhan and they were handed over to the court of wards under the bombay court of wards act, 1905(hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). ..... is the plaintiff's suit bad for want of notice under section 31 of the bombay court of wards act ?5. ..... the learned additional civil judge has come to the conclusion that the amounts paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant must be regarded as rents paid by the plaintiffs and accepted by the defendant as such; much more so when the defendant had not produced any register admittedly maintained by him showing the amounts received by the defendant and that the fact that the defendant has accepted rents from the plaintiffs would fall within the ambit of the words 'with the approval of the court of wards' occurring in section 37(1) of the act. ..... that the amount paid by various plaintiffs to the defendant even after the death of navaz khatoon bi did not constitute rent but was by way of compensation for actual occupation of the properties and that navaz khatoon bi was not competent to lease out these properties to the plaintiffs when the court of wards saddled with the management of the properties in view of section 37(1) of the act and further that notice under section 31 of the act was mandatory and the same having not been issued prior to the institution of the suits, the suits .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2797; 1987(2)KarLJ327
..... as the aforesaid two sons of the deceased nilkanthappa were minors, the estate of the deceased including the lands in question were taken under the management of the court of wards by the order dated 27-2-1938 issued by the chief of kurundwad state, under the provisions of the bombay court of wards act, 1905 (the provisions of which appear to have been adopted by the erstwhile state of kurundwad ..... the state of mysore, on the attainment of majority by sangappa nilkanthappa potdar, passed an order dated 17th october 1988 withdrawing the superintendence of the court of wards under : section 40(2)(a) of the bombay court of wards act, 1905 and directed restoration of the properties in question to ..... the land tribunal rejected the application on the grounds that it was not proved that the petitioner was cultivating the lands in question as a tenant at the time when the court of wards assumed the management of the lands in question in the year 1938; that he came to cultivate the lands in question only during the management of the court of wards, and therefore, in view of the provisions of section 88 of the bombay act 67/48 as amended by bombay act 13/56, and section 108 of the land reforms act the lands in question did not vest in the state government and as such the petitioner was not entitled to be registered as an ..... in 1968, when the management was withdrawn by the court of wards, bombay act itself was not in force, by virtue of the land reforms act, which came into force on 2-10- .....
Tag this Judgment!