GOPAMMAL Vs. VSRINIVASA AIYANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent in the Lower Court is the appellant before Rs. She is the widowed mother of a minor boy. On the application of the minor s father s 1st cousin, one V. Srinivasa Aiyangar has been appointed as guardian of the minor s property, superseding her in the interests of the minor, so far as the guardianship of his properties is concerned.

(2.) The order appointing Srinivasa Aiyangar as guardian was passed on the 19th day of January 1914, under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Section 84 of the Act provides that "where a guardian of the property of a ward has been appointed...he shall, (a) if so required by the Court, give a bond...to the Judge of the Court...engaging duly to account for what he may receive in respect of the property of the ward." It seems to me clear that it is only after the appointment that the person appointed can be required under the Act to give security under Section 34(a). If he contumaciously fails to give security, Section 39 Clause (e), empowers the Court to remove him from the guardianship.

(3.) Section 50 of the Act empowers the High Court to make Rules (among other things) "as to the security to be required from guardians" Clause (b) and as to the circumstances in which such requisitions as are mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 34 should be made." (Clause (d) of Section 50). The rules should, however, be "consistent with the Act" (that is the Guardians and Wards Act). I think it would be inconsistent with the Act to impose a duty on the District Court to require such security before the appointment of a guardian. The following are portions of three of the Rules framed by the High Court under the Act.