RAMANUJULU REDDY Vs. RANGIAH REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There can be no doubt that appellant has wilfully disobeyed the orders of the District Court. On 10 October 1922 he was directed to invest the minor's money in approved securities. Instead of doing so, he lent it out on pro-notes and did not inform the Court that he has done so until he was called to account over a year later. The excuse that on 11 October 1922 he was not a proper guardian, as he had not given security, carries no weight. The, Court then pointed out to him his duty, whether as guardian de facto or as guardian de jure and he has not done his duty. Since then, he has at various times been ordered by the District Court to realize and deposit those moneys in that Court. The earliest of these orders was on 29 October 1924. Admittedly he has taken no steps to realize the money on the pro-notes and is now no nearer doing so than he was then. He pleads that owing to tightness in the money market his promisors cannot pay at present. He has taken no steps to compel them to pay.

(2.) Nor is the appropriate remedy for such conduct action under Section 45(1) which the lower Court has taken. Is it a case to which that section is applicable ? The lower Court has brought the case under Section 45 (1)(b) as failure to exhibit accounts in compliance with a requisition under Section 31(e) and to pay into Court the balance due on those accounts in compliance with a requisition under Section 34(d)(3).

(3.) The appellant's contention is that Section 34(d) is limited to such balance as his accounts show to be in his hands and not moneys invested and in the hands of others. The respondent does not go so far as to centend that Section 34(d) authorizes a Court to compel a guardian peremptorily, to realize all investments of the minor's money and produce the cash bud he does contend that it authorises the Court to compel such immediate realization and production of cash or production of the whole cash anyhow by the guardian, whether or no he can at once realize the investments in cases where the investments have been made in defiance of the orders of the Court.