(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent on the original side of this Court to recover from the appellants, who were sued as the legal representatives of his deceased brother Abdul Wahid, the amount due to him in respect of the management of his estate. The suit was tried by Somayya, J., who granted the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 29,348-14-2. The appellants object to the decree only in respect of two of the sums which make up the aggregate of Rs. 29,348-14-2. The first objection is with regard to a sum of Rs. 2,730-1-0 allowed as a one-fourth share of a fixed deposit and the second objection is with regard to a sum of Rs. 9,760, allowed in respect of interest from the date of death of Abdul Wahid, which, took place in the month of September, 1932.
(2.) The respondent is the youngest son of the late Dr. N. Mohamed Oosman Sahib of Madras. Dr. Mohamed Oosman died on the 10 April, 1929. He was survived by three sons and two daughters. The respondent was then a minor. His eldest brother Abdul Wahid acted as the respondent's guardian and took charge and managed his share of their father's estate, which was partitioned amongst the sons and daughters on the 26 June, 1929. The total value of the estate was Rs. 4,00,000. It included immovable properties in Madras and Trichinopoly. The respondent was allotted as his share certain lands and houses in Trichinopoly, a house in Madras and Rs. 5,100 in cash. Each son and each daughter received as part of his or her share immovable property and the rest in cash. After the father's death the respondent lived with his eldest brother in Madras until the month of April, 1931. Abdul Wahid then moved to Trichinopoly, where he was taken ill. He moved to his father-in-law's house in Mysore in June, 1932 and died in Bangalore in the following September. Abdul Wahid was survived by his son, the second appellant, and his wife the third appellant. The first appellant is his father-in-law and he has been made a party because he has been appointed the guardian of the property of the second appellant. The respondent attained his majority on the 5 January, 1933 and filed this suit on the 19 December, 1935.
(3.) It is not disputed that upto his death Abdul Wahid remained in possession of the respondent's share of his father's estate. The appellants put the respondent to full proof of his case. They went so far as to deny that Abdul Wahid had acted as the respondent's guardian. That attitude has now been abandoned. It is accepted that Abdul Wahid was the de facto guardian of the respondent and as such was in a fiduciary position.