Judgement Appeal (No. 59 of 1920) from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh (December 16, 1918) varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Fyzabad (May 17, 1918). The respondent Bank obtained against the appellant a preliminary decree for sale under a mortgage granted in their favour by the appellant. The decree was made on June 15, 1915, by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner and varied a decree made by the Subordinate Judge. On July 21, 1915, the appellant was declared a disqualified proprietor under s. 8, sub-s. 1 (d) (iv.), of the United Provinces Court of Wards Act (U. P. Act IV. of 1912), and a few days later the Court of Wards assumed superintendence of his estate. On February 21, 1916, upon an application by the respondent Bank against the Court of Wards, the appellant not being a party, the preliminary decree was made final. On October 9, 1915, the appellant petitioned the Local Government by memorial that the order declaring him to be a disqualified proprietor should be set aside and the estate discharged. That petition being rejected, he, on June 14, 1916, addressed a memorial to the Government of India with the same object. On September 7, 1916, the Bank applied for execution of the final decree, but Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 494 ( 1920- 1921) Narindra Bahadur Singh V. Oudh C ommercial Bank 247 upon an arrangement made with the Court of Wards the sale proceedings were stayed upon C conditions. On May 16, 1916, the Local Government made an order releasing the estate subject to the appellant paying Rs. 57,000, which he did in July. On July 3, 1917, the Bank renewed its application, and the appellant raised objections of which those material to this appeal were that the final decree was not binding upon him, as it was made against the Court of Wards which had no jurisdiction to act or appear for him. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the objections and made a decree allowing the sale to proceed. Upon an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner the decree was affirmed subject to an alteration in the interest claimed under the arrangement by which the execution was stayed. Both Courts refused to receive in evidence a letter purporting to be from the Secretary of Government of India to the appellant and dated February 27, 1918. Upon an appeal to the Judicial Commissioner the decree was affirmed subject to an alteration in the interest claimed under the arrangement by which the execution was stayed. Both Courts refused to receive in evidence a letter purporting to be from the Secretary of Government of India to the appellant and dated February 27, 1918. That letter, after stating that a copy of the letter addressed by the Government to the Local Government could not be sent as it was confidential, said " I am therefore to inform you that your estate was released at the instance of the Government of India, because they were unable to agree that the circumstances justified the Local Government in declaring you, under s. 8 (1.) (d) (iv.) of the United Provinces Court of Wards Act, IV. of 1912, to be disqualified to manage your own property, and thus requiring the Court of Wards to assume the superintendence of the estate under s. 12 of the Act. I am to add that if you intend to apply to the Privy Council for special leave to appeal, the Government of India will have no objection to your using this letter in support of your application in any way that you may think advisable." The learned Judges in the appellate Court pointed out that the letter was not proved in evidence ; they said that in any case it was irrelevant, since under s. 11 of the U. P. Act IV. of 1912 they were precluded from discussing the validity of the declaration by the Local Government. 1921. May 9. Upjohn K.C. and Parikh for the appellant. The final mortgage decree was not binding upon the appellant. The original order declaring the appellant a disqualified proprietor was nullified by the order of the Government of India. The Court of Wards consequently had no jurisdiction to assume superintendence of the estate or to act on behalf of the appellant. It is not necessary upon this appeal to consider what was the real effect of the order of the Government of India, because the Courts below have refused to entertain that question. If necessary the matter should be remitted in order that that question may be tried. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the respondents were not called upon. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by VISCOUNT HALDANE. If necessary the matter should be remitted in order that that question may be tried. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the respondents were not called upon. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by VISCOUNT HALDANE. The question on this appeal is whether the respondents can enforce a decree made a good while ago in a suit for sale of certain mortgaged properties. The preliminary decree was made on June 15, 1915, on appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner from a decree dated October 31, 1912, of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow. A few days later, on July 21, 1915, the Court of Wards purported to declare the mortgagor a disqualified proprietor, and assumed superintendence of his estate under the United Provinces Court of Wards Act (U. P. Act IV. of 1912). On a date which is variously stated, but appears to have been February 21, 1916, the decree was made final. On June 14, 1916, the mortgagor applied for the estate to be released, and on September 12, 1917, the estate was released from the superintendence of the Court of Wards under the direction of the Local Government, which had been set in motion and in some way directed to bring that about by the Central Government of India. Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 494 ( 1920- 1921) Narindra Bahadur Singh V. Oudh C ommercial Bank 248 The appellant is now resisting the execution of the decree, because, he says, the decree absolute is not binding on him, inasmuch as the Court of Wards had no jurisdiction to represent him in the proceedings. The contention of the respondents and the view taken by the Court below is that the action of the Court of Wards while its superintendence continued to exist was operative, and that it cannot be treated as having been a nullity ; it was good until set aside by the Local Government, acting on the directions of the Central Government of India. Their Lordships attention has been drawn to certain sections of the United Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1912, to the effect that no declaration made by the Local Government under s. 8 or by the Court of Wards under s. 10 is to be questioned in any civil Court, and there are analogous provisions to those providing for other cases which cover the kind of proceedings which are before their Lordships. The material facts are these As has been said, the preliminary decree for sale was obtained on October 31, 1912, the mortgage having been executed a long time previously, in 1894. The decree stood in substance, although it was modified on appeal, and then there were rather complicated questions raised as to interest which were the subject of proceedings, and they are in form before their Lordships. But as to that the matter was disposed of in the course of the petition that was presented to the Board for a stay of execution. The result is that the question with regard to the interest is not now before their Lordships ; the only question that is before them being whether the Court of Wards validly represented the appellant in the substantial proceedings in regard to the decree itself. On July 21, 1915, the Court of Wards assumed superintendence of the estate of the appellant. The Bank then applied for a decree absolute for sale against the Court of Wards, representing the appellant, and it was made on February 21, 1916. Then there were arrangements made between the Court of Wards and the Bank for the postponement of the execution of the terms of the decree with which their Lordships are not concerned, and there were certain questions as to whether there should be an appeal to the Privy Council from the decision in India as to the validity of the decree for sale, but the Court of Wards was unwilling to appeal to His Majesty in Council, and ultimately no appeal was brought. Then by an order of the Local Government made on May 16, 1917, under the order of the Government of India, the estate of the appellant was directed to be released upon payment by him of the sum of Rs. 57,000. On June 29, 1917, the mortgagor paid that sum, and on September 12, 1917, his estate was, as already stated, released from the superintendence of the Court of Wards. 57,000. On June 29, 1917, the mortgagor paid that sum, and on September 12, 1917, his estate was, as already stated, released from the superintendence of the Court of Wards. On July 3, 1917, the Bank made a second application for the execution of the final decree of February 21, 1916, by which it was declared that the mortgaged properties were to be sold, and the only question before their Lordships is whether the decree absolute is one that was binding on the appellant, inasmuch as it was made against the Court of Wards, which it is now said had no jurisdiction to act. Their Lordships have not before them the terms of the order made by the Government of India, nor the correspondence which took place between the Central Government and the Local Government. For reasons of State, these documents are not produced and their production cannot be compelled, but there is no reason to infer-that they would make the matter in any way different from what it prima facie appears to be. The Local Government put the Court of Wards in charge of the appellants estate and prima facie that was within their powers. It continued to be under their control until the Local Government released it. It is not to be presumed, unless it is clearly proved by the appellant, that the release operated retrospectively, so as to invalidate all the multitudinous acts which must have been done while the Court of Wards was in superintendence. Their Lordships are, therefore, unable to take any view different from that taken by the Court below. In the Court below reference was made to the terms of the United Provinces Court of Wards Act of 1912, and particularly to ss. 8, 11 and 12, and to chapter VIL, which contains ss. 53 to 60, all of [@ page LRIA Law. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 494 ( 1920- 1921) Narindra Bahadur Singh V. Oudh C ommercial Bank 249 499] which point to what is a stringent provision that no one is to investigate the motives or review the discretion of the governing body which is being dealt with, or to question what it has done in the Courts. Rep. 48 Ind. App. 494 ( 1920- 1921) Narindra Bahadur Singh V. Oudh C ommercial Bank 249 499] which point to what is a stringent provision that no one is to investigate the motives or review the discretion of the governing body which is being dealt with, or to question what it has done in the Courts. Without proof that the proceedings of the Court of Wards were a nullity, their Lordships are not in a position to look into the matters which have been sought to be discussed before them. It is enough to say that their Lordships agree with the judgment of the Court below, and they will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal be dismissed with costs.