Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(11) Whether if he be liable to ejactment he is entitled, either under Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act or in equity, to compensation for the present estimated value of improvements made by him, or to a lien on the property for the amount?

5. It does not appear necessary to discuss all the above questions at length. The guardianship of Government an parens patrice [Mayne's Hindu Law 265; West & Buhler 541, note (e)] is not disputed. Authorities as to the limitations of its power as such have not been cited. It is not however, contended that such power would be unlimited, or would extend to the absolute alienation of the ward's property without regard to justifying necessity and the interests of the minor. This indeed seems to have been recognized in the G.R. No. 5282 delegating management of the estate to the Collector, which authorises nothing but management, and reserves to Government the power to determine the best plan for liquidation of debts. It is contended for the defendant that the action of the Collector was ratified by G.R. No. 5008. But that document contains no express approval of what had been done and intimates rather that the Collector should be guided by the Legal Remembrancer's opinion that the Collector should comply with the requirements of the Guardians and Wards Act, in order to secure to the defendant the benefits of past transaction. Moreover it is doubtful whether Government were in full possession of all the facts, as to the three documents, Exhibits 59, 60 and 61, which are referred to as if only one agreement or lease had been entered into. And full knowledge is essential to ratification; Lewis v. Read (1845) 13 M. & W. 834; Hilbery v. Hatton (1864) 33 L.J. Ex. 190; Marsh v. Joseph (1897) 1 Ch. 213. Moreover G.R. No. 5008 is dated 1890, and as its contents indicate was subsequent to the appointment of the Collector under Act XX of 1864, whereby the guardianship of Government had determined. And there can be no ratification by a person who at the time of ratification could not have done the act himself even though he had the power to do it when the original act unauthorised by him was done. For no one can supply an authority who does not possess it: Bird v. Brown (1850) 19 L.J. Ex. 154. That the Collector, acting on behalf of Government, could, without precedent authority or subsequent ratification, validly lease the minor's property in perpetuity has not been shown, and as observed already, Government apparently contemplated the reservation to itself of authority for such purpose.