HOSUR KASIPATHY, EX. PROPERTY GUARDIAN OF THE MINORS MUTCHALA KESAVA REDDI AND TWO ORS. Vs. C.P. VENUGOPAL, OFFICIAL RECEIVER APPOINTED PROPERTY GUARDIAN OF THE MINORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE guardian of the property of the minors is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. By an order of the District Judge, Anantapur, dated 10th December 1941 in Order p. No. 8 of 1941 the petitioner was appointed as the guardian of the property, and under the terms of the order he was directed that he should on no account keep in his hands more than Rs. 100 after making allowance for the monthly expenditure and that he should deposit into Court all sums over and above Rs. 100 as and when the cash balance with him exceeded the said amount. The petitioner filed a memo on 20th March 1946 for fixing his remuneration and prayed that a remuneration of 5 per cent be fixed on the gross realisations, as the remuneration that was fixed in the order was insufficient in view of the heavy work which he did on behalf of the estate. The learned District Judge made an order on 29th March 1946 that "the remuneration is fixed at five per cent on the realisation." The petitioner was discharged, and the Official Receiver was appointed as the guardian of the property in about April 1948. The matter again came up before the District Judge on 26th June 1948 when it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the 5 per cent that was directed to be paid by the previous order was on the gross collections and act on the net realisations. The learned District Judge held that the 5 per cent that the petitioner was entitled to was only on the net realisations and allowed the other prayer in his petition that the order should be given retrospective effect.

(2.) IN view of the order dated 26th June 1948 whereby the commission was fixed only at 5 per cent on the net realisations it was found that the petitioner was to pay back into Court certain amounts which he retained as part of his commission on the basis that his remuneration was 6 per cent on the gross realisations, and when the matter came up before the Court the following order was passed on 17th November 1948 :

(3.) AS regards the second contention as to the liability of the guardian to pay interest in respect of sums retained by him over and above what he was permitted, the learned Judge does not refer to any provision of law entitling him to charge the guardian with interest; but he observes: