( 65 )
Present: Fisher C.J. and Garvin J.
MAHAWOOF et al. v. MARIKKAR.
ib8-^-D. C. Matara, 2,121.
Curator—Lease of property—Sanction of Court—Civil Procedure Code,
A curator of a minqj's. estate appointed under section 582 of theCivil Procedure. <3ode has no power to grant a lease of property'without the sanction of court.
Perpra v. Perera1 followed.
^(^PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Matara.
H. V. Perera (with Gnanapragasam), tor first defendant, appellant.
N. E. Weerasooria (with Samarawickreme), for plaintiff, respondent. *
E. G. P. Jayatilleke (with R. C. Fonseka), for second and thirddefendants, respondents.
October 22, 1928. Fisher C.J.—
In this case the plaintiff claimed possession of a half share ofcertain land and half share of • the boutiques stancjjng thereon aslessee under a lease which was granted by a curator as such for a -term of three years and nine months, and the question for ourdecision on this appeal is whether that lease is valid or not.
The date of the lease is March 13, 1924, and on March 6, the then•Judge of, the District Court qjade an order which clearly indicatedhis opinion that the curator had exceeded his authority by grantingcertain previous leases in respect of this or other properties ofwhich he was curator and directed him to ‘ ‘ take charge of allthe lands from April 1.” The words “ accounts accepted ”appeared *E the ,end of that order, and it is contended that evenif it was not within the power and authority of the curator togrant the lease in question the Judge must be taken to have ratified .the lease by1 going into and accepting accounts connected with it.
In my opinion this contention cannot prevail. If ratificationcould make the lease valid it should at least be apparent that itwas the definite intention of the Court to ratify it.
In my opinion the extent of the powers of the curator in thiscase must he ascertained- from the terms of his appointment, and *therefore we must consider the terms of the certificate granted
1 (1902) 3 Browne's Reports of Cases, 150.
SJ. N. B 11394 (10/51)
( 66 )
. Fibhbr OX
to him under section 582 of the Civil Procedure Code. In clause 1of that certificate (Form No. 94) he is given “ the same powersin the management oftheestate as mighthave been exercised
by the saidifnot a minor.”In my opinionthis
power of management does not include the power to grant a- lease.The granting of the lease is, in fact, parting with the managementof the property.
In my opinion, therefore,the lease is invalid. In holdingthis
view we are followingandgiving effect tothe decision ofthis
Court in Perera v. Perera.1 In his judgment in this case Wendt J.says:—
“ At all events the terms employed in the form of letters 6howthat the curator was only to have the management ofthe minor's estate. It would be productive of greatinconvenience and uncertainty if the validity of a leaseby a curator, granted without the Court’s special sanction,were made to depend on the circumstances of each caseas to the length of the term, amount of rent, necessityfor leasing, &c.; and I- think it is the better course tohold, for the reasons given by my brother Middleton,that any lease whatever for a term exceeding one monthneeds the Court’s previous sanction for its validity.”
The appeal therefore must be allowed. The judgment will beset aside and the appellant will be entitled to his costs in thisCourt and in the Court below.
Garvin J.—I agree.
1 3 Browne ISO.
MAHAWOOF et al. v. MARIKKAR