KUPPATHAMMAL Vs. SAKTHI ALIAS THAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Judge, Coimbatore, on an application under Section 43 (1) at the Guardians and Wards Act, refusing to grant interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent the property guardian from handing over any portion of the income, of the minor's properties to the 2nd respondent who is the minor's step mother or retaining any portion thereof for herself.

(2.) TILE matter has had a considerable amount of previous history and the circumstances in which this application came to be filed were briefly these. One andavan Chettiar, the father of the minor concerned in this appeal, died on 12-31950 leaving considerable properties. This minor boy, by name Arunthavachelvam, was the sole issue of the deceased who left him surviving besides of course this minor child two widows Thayammal and Venkalakshmi Animal, the former being the mother of the minor. The deceased also left behind him his own mother kuppathal who is the appellant in this appeal. Sometime after the death of Andavan Chettiar, the appellant filed O. P. No. 67 of 1953 under the Guardians and Wards Act, praying for the appointment of a guardian for the properties of the minor. The two widows of Andavan Chettiar were impleaded as respondents to this petition. The parties appear to have settled their disputes and reported to the court that the petitioner Kuppathal had no objection to Thayammal, the 2nd respondent, being appointed the guardian of the minor's properties on condition however of her furnishing security in a sum which would ensure her administration in the minor's estate efficiently. The annual income from the properties left by the deceased appears to have been subject to fluctuations in different years and the District Judge determined the average income at about Rs. 50,000. He thereupon passed an order on 27-1-1954 appointing the mother Thayammal whose rectitude was not impeached in the proceedings as the property guardian on condition of her furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 50,000. He however added at the end of this order a reservation which had led to complications. He said : "the respondents as widows cannot be asked to furnish security in the full sum as they have also certain rights to the. . . . . . . . . property, the details and the nature of which I deliberately retrain from discussing in this order. " the guardian was directed to furnish a draft bond by 1-2-1954. Kuppatharmnal the mother was not satisfied with the condition us to security imposed by the learned District Judge and fioled C. M. A. No. 73 of 1954 to this court disputing particularly the sufficiency of the amount of security demanded. The contention raised was that normally the amount of security furnished by a property guardian should, in accordance with the rules framed by mis court under the Guardians and wards Act, 1890, be at least twice the annual income from the property and that no circumstance existed to justify a departure from that rule. The appeal came on before Balakrishna Aiyar J. , and the learned Judge upheld the order of the court below as regards the quantum of the security as one calculated to further the interest of the minor but ho imposed certain other conditions on the guardian which are not relevant in the present context. The learned Judge added "in respect of any other matter that may arise the parties are at liberty to move the District Judge and take his orders. " The decision of this court was rendered on 14-10-1954. The next proceeding to be noticed is I. A. No. 34 of 1935, which was an application taken out by the property guardian for directions that the stepmother might be permitted to realise a fourth of the rents for the properties as she had been doing till then. It was said that since the death of Andavan Chettiar the senior widow had been in enjoyment of the properties which roughly amounted to a fourth share thereof a share to which she was entitled under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, and that her 'right to that share in the properties of the deceased under the statute had not been challenged till then. Notwithstanding the appointment of the natural mother as the property guardian she claimed the right to appropriate a fourth share of the income as belonging to herself. This application, however, was opposed by Kuppathammal the mother of the deceased and the District, Judge passed an order on 16-2-1955, which owing to its language had been the subject of conflicting interpretations by the parties. The learned District Judge said:

(3.) THE next proceeding in O. P. No. 67 of 1953 was I. A. No. 73 of 1956 which was an application filed under Section 39 of the Guardian and Wards Act for the removal of the natural mother from the property guardianship of the minor. Several charges were made in this application and the matter is pending enquiry, and I am not pronouncing any opinion in regard to the charges made or to explanations offered. In the course of this application for removal of the guardian kuppathammal filed I. A. No. 74 of 1956 from the order in which the present C. M. A. has been filed. The prayer in this application was to restrain the property guardian from Handing over any portion of the income from the entire properties either to Venkalakshmi (the co-widow) or from taking any share to herself. This application became necessitated by reason of the entries in the accounts filed by the guardian which showed that for the period ending 31-10-1954 the guardian had debited the estate with the payment of a fourth share of the income to Venkalakshmi Animal showing the balance of three fourths alone as the income from the estate. In the accounts submitted for the half year from January to June 1955 (1-1-1955 to 30-6-1955) the guardian had debited the estate with a fourth of the income as having been paid to Venkalakshini and another one fourth share to herself and showed the balance of one halt as the income of the minor's estate. The application I. A. No. 74 of 1955 stated that this was strictly against the specific directions of the court in the previous proceedings. In the course of the affidavit in support of this application, Kuppathammal said: