(1.) The question of law that is raised is one of some difficulty. The appellant was appointed guardian of the property of his nephew in 1912. On an application in 1923 made by a relation of the ward, the District Judge directed the guardian-the appellantto file his accounts into Court.They were filed; acccordingly and scrutinised by the District Judge who found that the sum actually due by the guardian to the minor's estate was Rs. 2,180, a sum considerably more than that admitted in the accounts.
(2.) The appellant questions in this appeal the correctness of the finding. Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar for the respondent, the applicant in the Lower Court, takes a preliminary objection that no appeal lies from the order in question. His contention is shortly this. The order of the Lower Court is made under Section 34(d) and this does not fall under Section 47 which specifies the orders that are appealable. It is doubtless true that under the Act an appeal does not lie from an order made under Section 34(d).
(3.) The real question, however, is, does the present order come within the terms of Section 34(d)? Section 34 may be thus summarized: "Where a guardian of the property of a ward has been appointed or declared by the court, he shall (a) if so required by the court, give a bond engaging to duly account for what he may receive; (b) if so required by the Court, deliver to the Court within such time as the Court directs a statement of the property of the ward received by him and of the debts due by the estate; (c) if so required by, the Court, exhibit his accounts in the Court at such times and in such form as the Court from time to time directs; (d) if so required by the Court, pay into the Court at such time as the Court directs the balance due from him on those accounts or so much thereof as the Court directs; and (e) apply for the maintenance of the ward such portion of the income of his property as the Court directs and if the Court so directs the whole or part of that property.