CASE COMMENT

Mohammad Murad Ibrahim Khan vs Govt. Of U.P. 1956

Introduction

This case is linked to the obligation and the promise and is found in Article 148 of the 1872
Contract Law. An obligation is the delivery of goods from one person to another for a certain
purpose, on the basis of a contract that it must be, when the purpose is satisfied. , be returned
or disposed of according to the instructions of the person who delivers them  This is an appeal
by the plaintiffs against a decree of the wise civil court judge of Aligarh who rejects his complaint
against the United Provinces government (now Uttar Pradesh). The plaintiffs are a son and
daughter of one Mohammad Farahim Khan. In 1923 they were minors and their grandfather,
Haji Mohammad Yusuf Khan, was appointed as his guardian under the provisions of the
Guardians Act and the guards of the Aligarh district judge. Anwarullah, who claimed to be her
maternal uncle, presented a question to the district judge of Aligarh on 2-7-1927. In this
application, he stressed that the children had jewels and that the tutor was in debt. He
expressed his concern for the protection of the property of minors and made numerous prayers
to the wise judge, including the request that the guardian be invited to produce the jewels before
the Court and that, for security reasons, he could be deposited in a bank or wherever the Court
deems appropriate. On 5-7-1927, the wise district judge issued a notice of this request, which
can be returned on 18-7-1927. Later, the guardian appeared before the wise district judge and
made a statement stating that "the ornaments could be deposited in the bank and that he had
no objections". We are unable to find the date on which the declaration was made in the
register. Presumably it was 18-7-1927. On 27-7-1927, the jewels were produced before the
magistrate district judge. Weighed and prepared a list. We found in the order form of that date
that these jewels were "entrusted to Nazir after an investigation and an inspection".         

  Background

The sections used in the case are: Section 38 of the 11th Bengal Regulation of 1822.
 Article 300 of the Constitution.
Article 176 of the Government of India Act, 1935

Section 32 of the Government of India Act, 1919

Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858.
 Section 107, Government of India Act, 1915
 Section 122, Civil P. C.
Judgment
In the present case, the duty of the nazir was to keep in custody the ornaments that had been
entrusted to him by the district judge. If he has committed a breach of this duty and has been
guilty of negligence, he has committed an illegal act in the performance of the duty imposed by
law. In this vision of the law, the government is not responsible for the order approved by the
wise district judge who refuses to deliver the ornaments to the applicants.

Case comment
 In the present case, there was no contract between the district judge or his nazir, on the one
hand, and the appellants or their guardian, on the other. The district judge ordered the guardian
to do something and the guardian obeyed. In our opinion, there was no contractual relationship
between the parties and no contractual obligation emerged. The District Judge or his Nazir is
not a person authorized by the Government to enter into any contract in his name. Therefore,
the complaint, even if imprinted on the basis of the contract, is bound to fail. In this vision of the
law, the government is not responsible for the order approved by the wise district judge who
refuses to deliver the ornaments to the applicants.  so, in my opinion, the government will not be
responsible for the loss because there was no contract and there was no link and bailment.

Sanjana seth
Bba llb
Roll no. -- 55