W A VARADACHARIAR Vs. RAJA RAMAKRISHNAMBA GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred by a guardian of minor's property appointed under the Guardian and Wards Act. The objection taken by him to the District Judge's order is that the District Court had no jurisdiction to issue directions to the appellant in respect of certain trust property of which the Karwetnagar Zamindars have been regarded as hereditary trustees. This estate was for some time under the management of the Court of Wards, and, upon the withdrawal of the Court of Wards management, under Section 59 of the Court of Wards Act, the guardian appointed under that Act was made subject to the same rights, duties and liabilities as if he had been appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act. The Guardians and Wards Act contains no provision empowering the Guardians appointed under that Act to deal with trust properties. Section 63 of the Court of Wards Act contains a special provision by which the Court of Wards is empowered to make arangements for the discharge of the wards's duties as trustee of religious endowments, the Court's superintendence being restricted as far as possible to the preservation of the property belonging to the religious institution in question. There is no such provision in the Guardian and Wards Act. It is therefore contended that the District Judge acted without jurisdiction in giving directions for the examination of the accounts of the trust property by a Commissioner and for the checking of the collections in the Tiruthani Temple.

(2.) For the proposition that the District Court has no power under the Guardian and Wards Act to appoint a guardian in respect of trust properties there is good authority in Obla Venkatachalapathi Aiyar V/s. Thirugnanasambanda Pandara and Kilby V/s. Mussamat Bahuria Sheoratan Kuar (1922) I.L.R. 1 Pat. 432.

(3.) It is argued for the respondents that Section 59 of the Court of Wards Act in speaking of guardians of the person and property of minors uses the word "property "in the widest significance; but I think we should be slow to assume that any powers are vested by mere implication. Where powers are conferred under any enactment, we always find definite words clothing the appointee with powers. I am of opinion that, as soon as the wardship of a ward of Court ceases, arrangements under Section 63 also cease automatically unless there is anything in the Guardians and Wards Act to cause them to continue.