ABDUL HASIM Vs. SRIMATI MALEA KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Tipperah. removing the appellant from guardianship of certain minors, and also against an order passed under Section 45, Sub-section 1, Clause (c) of Act VIII of 1890, by which the appellant was ordered to be detained in civil jail, until he paid a certain sum of money as directed by the Court under the provisions of Section 41, subsection 3. (There is also an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the orders of the Court below.

(2.) It appears from the judgment of the Court below, and the finding of the learned Judge is amply supported by the record, that the appellant has clearly abused his trust and that his interests are adverse to those of the minors. He has, therefore, been rightly removed from the guardianship of all the minors. It further appears that the guardian applied to the Court for permission to sell certain properties for liquidation of certain debts alleged to be due by the minors, and permission was granted accordingly. Two properties were sold for Rs. 6,800 and the learned Judge has found that only Rs 5,325 out of the said sum were paid in liquidation of the debts, although the whole of the said amount, namely, Rs. 5,325, was not due by the minor Maleka Khatun, whose father was the owner of the two properties. It has also been found that Rs. 1,475 out of the said sum are admittedly in the hands of the appellant, and the Court below has directed him to pay into Court the said amount. The learned Judge has further directed the appellant under Section 41, Clause (3), to render full accounts, and to pay into Court the balance, if any, that remains in his hands from excess of income over expenditure (apart from the Rs. 1,475 in his hands from sale of the houses).

(3.) It is contended before us on behalf of the appellant that the Court has no jurisdiction to pass the said orders. Having regard to the case of Nabu Bepari v. Sheikh Mahomed 6 C.W.N. 207, we must hold that Section 41 of the Act only empowers the Court to require the guardian "to deliver, as it directs, any accounts in his possession or control relating to any past or present property of the ward; and that the Court has no power to order ac-counts to be rendered after the termination of guardianship. The order, therefore, in so far as it directs the appellant to render accounts to the Court and to pay into Court the balance, if any, that; remains in his hands, on rendering such accounts, must be set aside. The Court, however, has power, under Section 41, Clause (3), to direct a guardian on the termination of his guardianship to deliver any property (which includes money) belonging to the ward in his possession.