HEERALALL CHAKRABURTTY Vs. SREEMUTTY MANSHA MOYEE DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of a person who was appointed a guardian by the District Judge of Hooghly under the Guardians and Wards Act in respect of the person and property of a minor girl Manashamoyi. The minor was born in 1904. An application for guardianship was made by the appellant on 6 March 1924 and in the said application a prayer was made that the appellant be appointed guardian to the minor's estate as given in the schedule annexed to the petition. The Ka schedule properties consist of Government promissory notes of the face value of Rupees 7,000 and of market value of Rs. 4,200. Kha schedule properties consist of twenty-one items of ornaments the total value of which was put down at, Rs. 500. On 24th June 1924 the appellant Hiralal Chakravartty was appointed guardian and in May 1925 the minor girl attained majority.

(2.) The allegation which had been made in these proceedings which were started by the minor after she had attained majority Under Section 41, Guardian and Wards Act, is that neither the Government promissory notes of the face value of Rs. 7,000 nor the ornaments were made over to her by the guardian, that is the appellant. Her case is that she knew nothing about the return of the Government promissory notes to her and that the appellant fraudulently got a receipt which was signed for her by an advocate of this Court who ordinarily practises in the Calcutta Police Court? one Satis Chandra Gupta. On the other hand the case for the appellant is that the Government promissory notes were made over to her and they were received by Satis Chandra Gupta and that it was he who made over those Government promissory notes to her. On the other hand the case of the respondent is as has already been stated, that there was a sort of conspiracy between the present appellant and persons who are under his control by which it has been made to appear that she endorsed all these Government promissory notes to one Satis and on 5 October 1926 Satis sold the notes in the office of the well known brokers Messrs. Prosad Das Boral and Brothers, and the present appellant identified the said Satis Haldar to the said brokers. In support of the respective cases of the parties oral and documentary evidence have been led and the learned District Judge after a consideration of the same has come to the conclusion that the notes were not made over to the respondent and further that the ornaments were not made over to her; and he passed an order to the effect that the sum of Rs. 7,443, which was the value with interest at 6 per cent per annum of the Government promissory notes, should be made over by the appellant to the respondent and that so long as the sum is not made over to her the appellant is to be detained in civil jail in accordance with the provisions of Section 45(1)(c) Guardians and Wards Act. The learned District Judge has also directed that the ornaments, the value of which has been assessed at Rs. 500, be also made over to the respondent Manashamoyi. He has further lodged a complaint Under Section 476, Criminal P.C., against Hiralal Chakravarty and Nagendar Chakravarty.

(3.) Against this decision of the learned District Judge an appeal has been brought by Hiralal Chakravarty which is numbered Appeal from Original Order No, 398 of 1932. There is also an appeal by Hiralal Chakravarty against the complaint which is purported to have been made Under Section 476, Criminal P.C. In support of the Appeal No. 398 of 1932 by Hiralal Chakravarty it has been contended by the learned advocate for the appellant that the order of the District Judge was made without jurisdiction as the provisions of Section 41, Guardians and Wards Act, were not attracted to the facts of the present case and that the remedy of the respondent was not by starting proceedings Under Section 41, but was by the institution of a suit. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Nabu Bepari V/s. Sheikh Mahomed (1901) 5 CWN 207. An examination of this case will however show that what was laid down there was that the summary power created by the Guardians and Wards Act ceases as soon as the minority of the ward ceases and the object of that section is to give the Court as representing the interest of the minor, certain summary power for the protection of his property during minority; and that Section 41 cannot be construed into giving the Court, by summary procedure, a power to order accounts to be rendered after the termination of the guardianship. This is not a case of rendering accounts. This is a case where the ward seeks for relief by way of delivery of specific properties to wit the Government promissory notes which belonged to her; and in our view the case falls within the purview of Section 41 which so far as is material runs in these terms: When for any cause the powers of a guardian cease, (in the present case the power of the guardian has ceased by reason of the ward ceasing to be a minor) the Court may require him, or if he is dead, his representative to deliver as it directs any property in his possession or control belonging to the ward or any accounts in his possession or control relating to any past or present property of the ward.