GOPAMMAL Vs. VSRINIVASA IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Adequate reason has not been shown for dissent from the lower Court s appointment of Mr. V. Sreenivasa Iyengar as the guardian of the property of the ward.

(2.) On the memorandum of objections taking objection to the amount which has been directed to be applied for the maintenance, education and advancement of the ward and of the persons dependent on him under Section 34 of the Act, a preliminary point is taken that the Act gives no right of appeal. It is clear that Section 47, under which appeals lie, does not provide specifically for an appeal. Rut it is contended that these directions, although given under Section 34, are given under powers vested in the Court by Section 32 of the Act : and that as orders under Section 32 are, by Section 47, appealable, this Court has power to hear this memorandum of objection. In our opinion, this contention is not sound. Section 47, in providing for appeals, specifies the sections from which an appeal shall lie in order and it is clear that the legislature must have examined each section for the purpose of deciding whether an appeal shall lie. The omission of Section 34 must, therefore, be intentional. And we cannot accept the proposition that, where the legislature has specifically omitted a certain section in providing for appeals, we can, by giving a wide effect to the general words in another section allow such an appeal. The words in Section 32 are certainly wide. They are " the Court may, from time to time, by order, define, restrict or extend the powers of a guardian of the property of a ward," and, if Section 34 was not in the Act it might fairly be argued that an order may be made as to the amount to be applied for maintenance and education under the provisions of this section. But we are satisfied that where there is a specific section, empowering the Court to give certain directions, we cannot look to the general words in any other section to find the powers. It is pointed out that under Section 47 (i) there is an appeal from orders and directions passed under Section 43; and it as argued that, those orders " regulating the conduct or proceedings of a guardian " relate to very minor matters and yet an appeal is allowed; and that therefore the legislature must have intended to allow an appeal in matters under Section 34 (e). The answer to that is, that that is purely a matter for the legislature. If the legislature, with knowledge of what provisions are contained in the sections, provides for appeals from certain sections, we cannot, because it is arguable that an appeal is allowed in certain minor matters, assume that the legislature intended that an appeal should lie in matters of great importance where it is not specifically provided.

(3.) Both the appeal and the memorandum of objections will be dismissed with costs. The respondent s costs in the appeal will be paid out of the estate.