SMT MANI DEVI Vs. SMTANPURNA DAI SIJUARIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants who have been ordered to render accounts to the plaintiff for the period during which the guardians were in charge of her estate during her minority in the following circumstances. The plaintiff was left a widow at the age of 12 or 13 on the death in 1926 of her husband, Rai Bahadur Gobindlal Sijuar, who left a married daughter, Srimati Mani Devi (defendant 1), by a predeceased wife. Her husband is Babu Narain Lal Katariar, defendant 7. The plaintiff is the daughter of Babu Govind Lal Pathak, defendant 2 in the action. In the year 1927 an application under the Guardians and Wards Act was made by Babu Gobind Lal Pathak that guardians should be appointed of the person and property of his minor daughter. By an order dated 17 January 1929 the father and the daughter, that is to say, defendants 2 and 1, were appointed guardians in respect of the property of the minor and they were both directed within one month to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties for the same amount (see order No. 106, Ex. 6, part, III, p. 11). On 7 April 1929 the security bond, Ex. 4, was executed by the guardians, Babu Gobind Lal Pathak and the daughter Srimati Mani Devi and also by two sureties Babu Madho Lal Dhenri (defendant 3) and Babu Kamla Prasad Ahir (who died in 1931 leaving him surviving his sons defendants 5 and 6--defendants 6 (a) to 6 (f) are minor sons of defendant 5; all these defendants have been impleaded to answer the claim against Babu Kamla Prasad Ahir). On the execution of the surety bond the guardians were entrusted with the due management of the estate of the plaintiff.

(2.) As required by the rules, an auditor is appointed from time to time to check the accounts of the guardians. As early as 1931 the report of the auditor disclosed that the guardians had misappropriated large sums belonging to the estate of the ward. The learned District Judge accordingly called upon the guardians to explain this and observed in his order dated 16 May 1931 that although the auditor filed his report on 7 May 1931 the guardian had taken no steps whatever to explain away the apparent misappropriation and the discrepancies noted by him. He did not accept the plea of the guardian that he was unable to explain owing to the illness of the manager and directed that the guardian must produce the account books in Court and some responsible officer should appear before the Court and explain away the discrepancies and ordered that "this must be done within 10 days." The relevant orders from order No. 141 to order No. 177 have not been printed nor are they to be found on the record of this appeal, but it may be taken that the guardians instead of complying with the orders of the learned District Judge managed to avoid the investigation till 9 October 1931, on which date order No. 178 was passed by the learned District Judge of Gaya. It states that a petition was presented to him a few days ago by the mother of the plaintiff complaining of the mismanagement of the estate. The minor herself sent one or two letters to the learned District Judge complaining of the mismanagement. It was, therefore, expected that the learned District Judge would take some drastic steps to investigate thoroughly into the serious charges which had been brought against the guardians appointed by him who were also said to have misappropriated about Rs. 70,000 the details whereof are given very clearly in para. 21 of the plaint. But, instead of doing this, the learned Judge was somehow prevailed upon to appoint Babu Mahadeb Chandra Gupta as manager of the estate on a remuneration of Rs. 200 a month which was to be paid to him by the guardians. This arrangement was obviously to the future advantage of the estate as subsequent events have shown. Indeed the plaintiff in para. 16 of the plaint distinctly states that the accounts of this manager had been examined by the Government auditors and passed by the District Judge as correct and that she is satisfied with the correctness of these accounts and does not hold this manager or anybody else liable for any accounts whatever during the period he was in charge of the estate. But the learned Judge refrained from making any investigation into the serious charges that had been brought against the guardians by the auditors. All that he says in that order is: I wanted to go into these matters but unfortunately the parties have amicably agreed upon a scheme by which the Court has been requested to appoint a manager on behalf of the estate. It is also suggested therein that Babu Mahadeb Chandra Gupta may be appointed manager subject to the orders and superintendence of the Court. I think, it is desirable for the ends of justice and proper administration of the estate that a manager should be appointed by the Court and I do accordingly appoint Babu Mahadeb Chandra Gupta as such manager to administer the estate. He will be an officer of the Court subject to the orders and superintendence of the District Judge and receive a remuneration of Rs. 200 per month from the guardians as agreed upon by the parties. He will exercise powers as noted in the petition filed and such other general powers as may be necessary for the efficient discharge of his duties in administering the estate. He should forthwith prepare an inventory in the presence of the guardians or their agents in order to understand what the present position of affairs is. I am constrained to pass the order because from the auditors report I find that the conditions are not as they should be.

(3.) I regret to observe that the learned District Judge failed in his duty to protect the interest of his ward. If he had been at all careful, this long litigation would have been avoided and the guardians of the estate would have immediately been called upon to pay over the large sums which were reported by the auditors to have been misappropriated unless the guardians were able to give satisfactory explanation of the expenditure of any part of these sums. A perusal of the orders which were passed by the learned District Judge from time to time after 9th October 1931 shows that the further conduct of the guardians with regard to the estate of the plaintiff was far from desirable. It shows that Sm. Mani Devi and her husband, defendant 7, were putting some obstructions in the preparation of an inventory and specially with regard to the ornaments and valuables. Another learned Judge who succeeded Mr. Chatterji as the District Judge in 1932 states in his order No. 194 of 6 April 1932, that Babu Narain Lal Kataria (that is to say defendant 7) should explain what he meant by not helping in the preparation of the inventory and that if he intentionally obstructs in this work the District Judge shall have the painful necessity of removing his wife from the guardianship. Order No. 212 of 17 June 1932 shows that the guardians were asked to explain about the missing ornaments and also why they sold so many gold mohurs or pieces of gold without the permission of the Court. On 30 June 1932, under order No. 216 this learned Judge observed that the position of the estate was getting worse and that he was still waiting the report of the auditor on the explanation of the guardians on the missing vouchers detected by him at the first audit and also regarding the missing ornaments and gold mohurs. On 29 August 1932, the mother of the minor put in a petition complaining that the auditor's report disclosed that the property guardians had misappropriated large sums of money and that necessary steps should be taken against the guardians. Mr. S.K. Das was succeeded by another learned District Judge. Apparently, taking advantage of this change of the incumbent, the guardians put in an application purporting to be on behalf of the minor that she should be declared a major as she had then attained majority.