PATHINA SUBBARAMI REDDI Vs. GENESAM PATTABHIRAMA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act. The minor having attained majority, the guardian was discharged and filed his accounts in Court. The minor took objection to these accounts and wished the Court to hold an enquiry and ascertain what amount was really due by the guardian. The District Judge has declined to hold any enquiry and has referred the minor to a suit if so advised. It is now contended for the petitioner, the late minor, that this order is wrong and that under Section 41(4) the Court ought to have held an enquiry and discharged the guardian after ascertaining what was due from him. There is no specific provision in the Act for such taking of accounts and determining the amount due by the guardian, but it is contended that in view of the fact that Section 41(4) says : " the Court may declare him to be discharged from his liabilities," etc, this can only be done alter an enquiry has been held, but it must be observed that there is no mandate in this section and it is not necessary that the Court should make such a declaration. Undoubtedly, if it were incumbent on the Court to make such a declaration, the Court would not be able to do so without holding an enquiry.

(2.) It has been held by the Calcutta High Court in three cases Nabu Bepari V/s. Sheik Mahomed [1900] 5 C.W.N. 207. Jagannath Panja V/s. Mahesh Chandra Pal [1916] 21 C.W.N. 688 and Abdul Hasin V/s. Maleka Khatun [1916] 29 C.L.J. 44, that under the Guardians and Wards Act no such enquiry should be held. The Allahabad High Court has taken a contrary view in Sita Ram V/s. Mt. Govindi A.I.R. 1924 All. 593 and there is also the opinion of a Judge of this Court in Rama Rao V/s. Rengaswami Rao to the effect that the Court ought to take an account. To deal with this last case first, the learned Judge seems to have come to this conclusion on the ground that he was unable to concede that the Court is bound to accept without scrutiny any recounts that the guardian chooses to submit.

(3.) This will certainly be applicable if Court were bound to make the declaration mentioned in Section 41(4), but if the Court is not so bound, it dose not seem necessary that there should be such an enquiry. If the Court is satisfied on a perusal of the accounts and on hearing the parties that the accounts are correct it may make such a declaration, but it is not bound to do so, nor is it bound to certify that the accounts are correct. The whole scheme of the Act seems to provide for matters of this kind, i.e, disputes between the minor and the guardian, by way of suit. Durning the minority Secs.35 and 36 provide for suits being filed by a next friend of the minor in case of misconduct on the part of the guardian, and there can be no doubt that, when the minor attains majority, he can bring a suit against his guardian. There being no provision at all for any enquiry into accounts by the Court I think the opinion expressed by Calcutta High Court is the correct one.