https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189214 A compromise decree in litigation involving wards under the Court of Wards was upheld because section 56 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912 was treated as directory, not mandatory. The Court read sections 55, 56, 57, 58 and 61 together and found no legislative intent to void proceedings merely because separate representatives were not appointed for wards with conflicting interests. It also rejected the Order XXXII objection, holding that the Deputy Commissioner, already acting as guardian under the Act, was competent to represent the ward and that the compromise entered under statutory authority remained effective. The dissent considered section 56 mandatory and would have treated the decree as void. en-us Mon, 14 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Dec 2016 15:57:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189214 A compromise decree in litigation involving wards under the Court of Wards was upheld because section 56 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912 was treated as directory, not mandatory. The Court read sections 55, 56, 57, 58 and 61 together and found no legislative intent to void proceedings merely because separate representatives were not appointed for wards with conflicting interests. It also rejected the Order XXXII objection, holding that the Deputy Commissioner, already acting as guardian under the Act, was competent to represent the ward and that the compromise entered under statutory authority remained effective. The dissent considered section 56 mandatory and would have treated the decree as void. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Dec 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189214