KANNEGANTI RAMAYYA Vs. KANNEGANTI TULASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Guntur dated 20 October, 1934, allowing an appeal from the decree of the District Munsif of Tenali dated 15 February, 1934, in O.S. No. 9 of 1933 and remanding the suit for disposal to the District Munsif, after recording a finding to the effect that the suit is maintainable. The suit was one for settlement of accounts in respect of the management of the plaintiff's property during her minority by the first defendant who had been appointed guardian of her property by the District Court in 1925 for the years 1925 to 1928. It was alleged in the plaint that the first defendant had not filed proper accounts in the District Court or rendered accounts to the plaintiff's mother who was appointed guardian of the plaintiff's estate in 1928 after the first defendant was removed from the guardianship by consent.

(2.) The second defendant was impleaded as he is the minor son of the first defendant, but he is not personally liable in respect of the suit claim and apparently he was impleaded merely to obtain a decree binding on him with reference to the relief claimed by the plaintiff for a first charge on certain properties belonging to the first defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that the suit is not maintainable and that the first defendant had filed proper accounts in the District Court which had been approved by the District Court and thereafter discharged him from the guardianship. It was also contended that nothing was due to the plaintiff by these defendants. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the preliminary ground that the suit was not maintainable. The other issues were not decided by the trial Court, which found that the suit was not maintainable and dismissed it with costs after refusing an-application to amend the plaint made after the case was closed. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge and in that appeal the District Judge held that the suit was maintainable. In his opinion the discharge of the guardian first defendant, though it might have been made under Section 41, Sub-clause 4 of the Guardian and Wards Act, did not prevent the plaintiff from instituting a suit for accounts against the guardian. The present appeal is from the order of the District Judge in appeal and it is preferred by defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the suit as framed is maintainable. The suit is for taking accounts and it is contended that, as the suit is one instituted against the guardian appointed under the Guardian and Wards Act and the guardian had been discharged under Section 41(4) of that Act, no suit will lie for merely taking accounts. Clause 4 of Section 41 is to the following effect: When he (i.e., the guardian) has delivered the property or accounts as required by the Court the Court may declare him to be discharged from his liabilities save as regards any fraud which may subsequently be discovered.