Pulavarti Satyam vs Kunchibhotla Satyanarayana and Another

Cornish, J.—The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 2,000 in the following circumstances. This sum was paid into Court as due to the

plaintiff who was then a minor represented by the guardian, the fifth defendant. The first defendant gave a bond for the amount, hypothecating

immovable property as security, and undertaking that this money should be paid to the plaintiff by the guardian in due course. Plaintiff having

reached his majority, and the money, as he alleged, not having been paid over to him by the guardian, has brought a suit to enforce the bond which

had been duly assigned to him by the District Munsif of Rajahmundry. The second defendant, who is the appellant, is the subsequent alienee of the

property hypothecated by the first defendant. He has objected that the suit is not maintainable.

The first question to be decided is whether this bond carried a personal liability on the part of the first defendant. In my opinion, the language of

the bond shows clearly that it did. The bond having been given in pursuance of an order made under Order 32, Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure

Code, a suit is the proper means of enforcing it. A bond given under this rule being for the protection of the minor''s interests against his guardian is

not a bond which is enforceable by execution in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Code. This has been decided by a Bench in

Kurugodappa v. Soogamma ILR (1917) 41 Mad. 40. Nevertheless, it has been argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant that this ruling

ignores the language of Clause (c) of Section 145. But this very question has been the subject-matter of a Full Bench ruling in Kalagarla Sankara

Mahadeva Setty Vs. Kalagarla Sanyasayya, . Where the distinction made in respect of an order under Order 32, Rule 6, seems to have been

expressly recognised and upheld.

Then it has been contended that it was not open to the District Munsif to assign the bond to the plaintiff, and the Privy Council ruling in Raj

Raghubar Singh v. J at Indra Bahadur Singh (1919) 38 M.L.J. 302 : L.R. 46 IndAp 228 : ILR 42 All. 158 is relied upon. That case lays down that

a bond given to the Court can only be enforced by an order of the Court; but that it cannot be assigned, because the Court, not being a juridical

person, has no title to assign the bond. But the bond in the present case has been given to the Additional District Munsif of Rajahmundry. He is

undoubtedly a juridical person, though the Court over which he presides is not. If the full name of the Munsif had been given in addition to his title

there can be doubt that, he would have been a juridical person competent to assign the bond. I cannot see why when he is a persona designata,

described by his title of District Munsif, it should make any difference. My opinion therefore is that the District Munsif was competent to assign the

bond.

Lastly, it has been contended on the authority of Raran v. Kandan (1933) 66 M.L.J. 540 : ILR 57 Mad. 803 that the extent of the guardian''s

liability to the plaintiff for this money must first be ascertained before a suit can be maintained. But that proposition had reference to an order of

sale in execution of the bond. It could have no application to the present case where the suit is to recover a liquidated sum of money due upon the

bond.

The result is that, in my opinion, the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs of the second respondent.

(Leave to appeal refused.)