Maharani Janki Kuer vs Sri Banwamalle Ramanaujear

In these two cases the Bettiah Raj and certain ryots of the Bettiah Raj are aggrieved by an order of the Subordinate Judge of Chapra enforcing against them two decrees, which are alleged to be barred by limitation. The decrees are said by the Court below to be enforceable for the reason that the order passed by the Court on the 30th June 1914 was an adjudication that the decrees were capable of execution. The objections now taken by the appellants were not then taken, and, therefore, the application of the law of limitation is res judicata inasmuch as the question should and could have been raised in the prior proceedings. On appeal from this decision a Divisional Bench of this Court remanded the case for findings as to whether certain parties were properly served with notices. It has been found by the lower Court that the notices on the tenants were properly served. It must, therefore, be held that the decision in the previous application for execution is binding upon them and they cannot now raise an objection that the decree is barred by limitation. But with regard to the appellant Maharani, it is clear that the decision of the former application wad wrongly made against her. The Maharani is a ward. It mast be shown that notice was served upon her in accordance with the provisions of section 54 of Act IX of 1879. The notice was served directly upon Mr. Laurie, the Assistant Manager of the Bettiah Raj, resident in Chapra. We required evidence to be taken as to what authority Mr. Laurie had to receive the notice direct instead of receiving it through the Collector. It has been found by the learned Subordinate Judge that Mr. Laurie had an implied authority to receive notices, the authority apparently being conveyed to him by a careless habit contracted by himself. We cannot substitute for a strict rule of law a careless habit. The law requires that notices be served upon the Manager of the Ward''s estate through Collector and any notice served otherwise is void. There was no real service of notice in the previous application against judgment debtor No. 1. Therefore the decisions in those prior proceedings are not res judicata against her. The proceedings are now obviously barred by limitation. The appeal by the appellant Maharani must be decreed and the application for execution of the decree against her refused as barred by limitation. We make no order as to costs in the appeal of the tenant-appellants. The appellant Maharani will receive the costs of this hearing in this Court and the Courts below. Hearing fee in this Court four gold mohurs.