KAMMA JOGAPPA Vs. BACHAM HANUMAKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, a person who was appointed the property guardian of a minor on 8-1-1942 in O. P. No. 72 of 1940, seeks to revise the order of the District Judge, Anantapur, dated 3-9-1948, calling upon him to bring some amounts said to belong to the estate of the minor into court. At the outset the counsel for the respondent, who is the mother and the personal guardian of the minor, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision petition. In order to get over this difficulty a petition has been died by Mr. Bhujanga Rao on behalf of the petitioner to convert the civil revision petition into a civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 43 of the Guardians and Wards Act.

(2.) In order to appreciate the preliminary objection and the contention raised in this petition it is necessary to set out briefly a few material facts. By the order of appointment the petitioner was directed to file accounts for each year on or before the fifth day of July, and not to invest any amounts belonging to the estate of the minor in any concern without the sanction of the court. In pursuance of those directions the petitioner was filing accounts every year before the 5th of July, and they were being scrutinised and passed up to the end of 1946. In July 1947 the District Judge, as a result of scrutiny of the accounts filed by the petitioner, passed certain remarks and called upon the petitioner to offer an explanation in respect thereof. Accordingly the petitioner filed a memo giving explanation on all the matters referred to in those remarks. It is not in evidence as to what happened to that memo. Ultimately the District Judge framed charges against the petitioner, and some of the items involved in the order under revision were also the subject-matter of those charges. An explanation was offered by the petitioner, but without considering it, the District Judge removed the petitioner on 24-2-1948 and directed him to hand over charge of the estate to the Official Receiver, who was appointed as property guardian in his place.

(3.) As against the order dismissing him, the petitioner preferred C. M. A. No 160 of 1948 which was ultimately dismissed by a Bench of this Court. Subsequently he handed over charge to the Official Receiver as directed by the order of his removal. On 13-7-1948 the petitioner was required to appear in court with account books. Pursuant to this notice he appeared in court and filed a memo stating that accounts had already been filed into court. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner was called upon to show cause why he should not be fined for disobeying the previous order of the court calling upon him to file accounts into court, and ultimately he was fined in a sum of Rs. 25 in spite of his explanation. Subsequently, that is, on 13-8-1948, the petitioner was required to submit a list of debtors to the estate, which direction was complied with by him. On 3-91948 the order under revision was made by the learned District Judge calling upon him to bring into court the various amounts mentioned in that order. It is against that order that the present civil revision petition is filed.