MUNI LAL AGARWAL Vs. BALBHADAR PROSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the ex-guardian, who is aggrieved by the execution of an order passed by the District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act in the following circumstances.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as guardian of a minor in the year 1933 and was removed some years later. Upon his removal, another guardian has been appointed in his place. As the result of certain proceedings, the Court ordered on 19 June 1937 that the ex-guardian had no right to spend the sum of Rs. 849-80 in conducting a certain suit in which the minor was only a co-plaintiff. He accordingly directed him to refund that amount by 30 June 1937. The Court refused to re-consider this order at the instance of the ex-guardian and on 22nd November 1937 again ordered that the ex-guardian should deposit this sum on or before 25 December 1937. Against this decision the appellant came in revision to this Court in Civil Revision No. 612 of 1937 which was disposed of by Dhavle, J. on 19 January 1938. That case is reported in Muni Lal V/s. MukteshwarA.I.R. 1938 Pat. 398. The argument before the High Court was that the Court had no jurisdiction to call upon the ex-guardian to pay the sum in Court. That argument was rejected and it was held that the Court had power to scrutinize the accounts submitted by a guardian and find out what the real balance in his hand was and direct him to deposit it in Court. It was also pointed out that if by reason of the removal of the guardian it were to be held that Section 34 had ceased to apply, Section 41(3) would seem to give the Court much the same power, the power even to deal with him under Section 45 if so required. On 22 April, 1938, the Court by Order No. 345 observed that the ex-guardian was asked to pay Rs. 849- 8-0 and he was unsuccessful in the High Court and permitted the new guardian to ask the ex-guardian to pay the sum within one month from that date failing which a suit would have to be instituted against him.

(3.) The new guardian had also reported that the ex-guardian had caused other losses to the estate of the minor. The Court was not satisfied with the explanation of the ex-guardian and by the same order on 22 April, 1938 it was ordered: "The ex-guardian must pay Rs. 1661-10-3 within one month from this date. His explanations are unacceptable."