T S ANANTHANARAYANA IYER Vs. B MEENAKSHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition raises for consideration the propriety of an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Palghat in O. P. No. 33 of 1949.

(2.) The petitioner here is a guardian-receiver appointed by the Court for the estate of certain minors. Investigation by this guardian showed that the minors had certain claims against their step-mother. The guardian made a report to the Court in relation to these claims and he was directed by the learned Subordinate Judge to take legal advice and take such action as might be tendered by the lawyer. In accordance with this direction, the guardian obtained legal advice and submitted a copy of this opinion to the Court and after stating the facts giving rise to the claim filed an application brfore the Court under Section 33, Guardians and Wards Act (8 of 1890) seeking the Court's opinion, advice or direction regarding the filing of a suit against the respondent. Notice of this application was given to the respondent who is the step-mother of the minor against whom the suit was intended to be filed and who as a stepmother was a party to the guardian petition. She filed a counter affidavit in which she reserved her objections to the claim on the merits and desired that the Court should direct the guardian to take such steps as he might be advised at his own risk. This counter affidavit did not characterise the intended suit by the guardian as frivolous or actuated by spite or ill Will. This application, with this report and counter affidavit came on before the learned Subordinate Judge and he disposed it of by a short order which runs thus:

(3.) In my opinion, a guardian making an application under Section 33 is entitled to have the advice and direction of the Court to enable him to obtain the benefit of the statutory presumption of a faithful performance of the duty cast upon him by the law and secure the protection which sub-Clause (3) affords. As I have mentioned earlier, the Court can certainly dismiss the application if it is of opinion that any such action is not in the interests of the minors. As the learned Subordinate Judge has not decided the application in the manner in which it ought to be dealt with, the matter will have to be reheard by the learned Subordinate Judge and disposed of according to law.