Judgement Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh (November 12, 1913) affirming an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich (June 4, 1913). Maneshwar Bakhsh Singh, while his property was under the superintendence of the Court of Wards under the Oudh Land Revenue Act (XVII. of 1876), borrowed certain money from the respondents. The property was released from superintendence in 1898. The respondents subsequently instituted a suit to recover the amount due, and after protracted litigation obtained a decree. Meanwhile, in 1911, Maneshwar Bakhsh Singh died and was succeeded by his son, the present appellant. In 1913 the respondents applied to the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich for execution of their decree by the sale of a village which had formed part of the property under superintendence. The appellant objected, relying upon s. 174 of the Oudh Land Revenue Act, 1876, but his objection was disallowed. Upon appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner the decision of the Subordinate Judge was affirmed. Sects. 173 and 174 of the Act are set out in the judgment. 1916. March 13. De Gruyther, K.C., and Kyffin, for the appellant. Upon the true construction of s. 174 of the Oudh Land Revenue Act, 1876, a decree in respect of a contract made by a person whose property is under superintendence of the Court of Wards cannot be executed Law. Rep. 43 Ind. App. 69 ( 1915- 1916) Debi Bakhsh Singh V. Shadi Lal 2 against the property under superintendence even after its release. A construction contrary to that contended for would to a large extent nullify the beneficial effect of both ss. 173 and 174. Sect. 205b, added to the North West Provinces Land Revenue Act (XIX. of 1873) by Act VIII. of 1879, s. 24, is in precisely the same terms as ss. 173 and 174 now under consideration. In Himanchal Singh v. Jhamman Lal (( 1900) I. L. R. 22 Allah. 364.) the High Court at Allahabad construed s. 205b as now contended for, and the same construction of s. 174 was adopted by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in Ram Parshad v. Musammat Muna Kuar. (( 1901) 4 Oudh Cases, 28.) In the present case the Court followed a dictum in Rameshar Bakhsh Singh v. Dhanpal Dus (( 1910) 14 Oudh Cases, 6.), in which case the present question only arose indirectly. (( 1901) 4 Oudh Cases, 28.) In the present case the Court followed a dictum in Rameshar Bakhsh Singh v. Dhanpal Dus (( 1910) 14 Oudh Cases, 6.), in which case the present question only arose indirectly. [Jhamman Lal v. Himanchal Singh (( 1901) I. L. R. 24 Allah. 136.) was also referred to.] The respondents did not appear. March 14. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD SHAW OF DUNFERMLINE. By s. 162 of the Oudh Land Revenue Act (XVII. of 1876) certain persons are declared to be disqualified from managing their estates. Among the enumeration of those persons are the following Under sub-s. (g), " Persons declared by the Chief Commissioner on their own application to be disqualified from managing their estates." The taluqdar of Mallanpur was one of those persons, On his application, his estates were assumed by the Court of Wards, and they remained under the management of that Court from the year 1886 until the year 1898. During that period the taluqdar borrowed certain sums of money; and on August 12, 1904, his creditors sued and obtained a personal decree against him in the Court of first instance. There were certain judicial proceedings which occurred subsequent to the decree; and it may be of interest to note that, the debt incurred having been originally a sum of Rs. 4000, execution was sought to be obtained against the property put under the management of the Court of Wards for the sum of Rs. 21,526, the interest having been running for a certain course of years at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum. The question in this case, and the sole question, is whether the decree so obtained can be put in execution against the property which was, at the date of the contraction of the debt, under the management of the Court of Wards. The sections of the Oudh Land Revenue Act to which reference has been made are ss. 173 and 174. Sect. 173 is in these terms " Persons whose property is under the superintendence of the Court of Wards shall not be competent to create, without the sanction of the Court, any charge upon or interest in such property, or any part thereof." Sect. 173 and 174. Sect. 173 is in these terms " Persons whose property is under the superintendence of the Court of Wards shall not be competent to create, without the sanction of the Court, any charge upon or interest in such property, or any part thereof." Sect. 174 says " No such property shall be liable to be taken in execution of a decree made in respect of any contract entered into by any such person while his property is under such superintendence." Their Lordships think that it should be observed that the object of these sections was the protection of the property against either transactions entered into by the person under tutelage by way of direct transactions of sale or of mortgage, and also the protection of the property against the consequences of any execution in respect of contracts entered into by a person under such tutelage. Sect. 174 deals with the latter situation. The Courts below have permitted execution against the property to be granted in respect of this debt—a debt incurred by a person under tutelage. The question is whether that decision is sound in law. There have been various decisions in the Courts in India, notably in Allahabad, which appear fully to support the appeal. But there is one dictum which is founded upon by the Court below which seems to have ruled the minds of the learned judges in constraining them to give effect to the execution Law. Rep. 43 Ind. App. 69 ( 1915- 1916) Debi Bakhsh Singh V. Shadi Lal 3 against the property in respect of this debt. The dictum is contained in the case of Rameshar Bakhsh Singh v. Dhanpal Das. (14 Oudh Cases, 6.) It was quite unneces sary, in the view that their Lordships take, for the decision of the case, which depended, as it was viewed by the Court who decided it, merely upon the construction of a certain decree. The dictum is contained in the case of Rameshar Bakhsh Singh v. Dhanpal Das. (14 Oudh Cases, 6.) It was quite unneces sary, in the view that their Lordships take, for the decision of the case, which depended, as it was viewed by the Court who decided it, merely upon the construction of a certain decree. That dictum was to the following effect " It is quite clear that, under the old Act,"—and the reference is either to this Act or an Act in similar terms—" a creditor could obtain a decree upon a bond given by a ward while his property was under superintendence, and execute that decree against the property of the ward after the property was released from superintendence." Their Lordships are clearly of opinion that this dictum was an unsound proposition in law. They think that, the object of the Act being the protection of the property, a person subject to the Court of Wards would in no sense be protected if this dictum were to be affirmed. What has been done in the present case seems to their Lordships to be a total violation not only of the spirit of the statute, but of the express provision of s. 174. The phrase in that section, "while his property is under such superintendence," is, in their Lordships opinion, a phrase annexed to and elucidative of the verbal expression "contract entered into by any such person." Sect. 174 is meant to protect property against the execution of a decree made in respect of "any contract entered into " during a certain period of time, namely, while the property is under such superintendence. If such a contract, incurring of debt, or transaction occurred during that time, the law of Oudh is plain under s. 174, to the effect that the property is protected against execution in respect of any decree following upon that transaction, that debt, or that contract. There is nothing further in the case, and their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be allowed with costs.