JAGARNATH LAL Vs. LAL BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application against an order of the District Judge of Patna dated January 31, 1936, directing the petitioner to pay into Court the sum of Rs. 5,992- 30 only. The proceeding arose in guardianship case No. 295 of 1926 which relates to the person and property of a minor named Dayanand. The minor was born on March 22, 1917, and it is stated that for a time his mother was appointed his guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, but she was removed for incompetence. Thereafter one Raj Bahadur was appointed guardian on September 27, 1924. He died on July 15,1926, and the petitioner Jagarnath Lal was appointed guardian of the person and property of the minor on January 11, 1927. He submitted accounts to the District Judge in February 1928. He submitted accounts again in January 1929. The correctness of the latter account was challenged by the husband of the sister of the minor who presented a petition to the District Judge objecting to the accounts and praying for the removal of the petitioner from guardianship. The accounts were checked by a Commissioner and were passed by the District Judge, who on May 22, 1929, rejected the prayer for the removal of guardian. Thereafter the petitioner filed accounts covering the period from December 1929 to April 1933. Objection was taken to these accounts by Lal Babu, the maternal uncle of the minor, who presented a petition to the District Judge praying for the removal of the guardian. The petitioner showed cause declaring that his accounts were correct, but stating that he was not willing to continue any longer as guardian and asking for his discharge. The District Judge made an enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner.

(2.) The principal items in dispute were payment amounting to Rs. 3,200 said to have been made to the mother of the minor for the maintenance of the minor and an amount of Rs. 1,575 which was a part of the consideration money of a sale- deed in respect of a certain property of the minor which the District Judge had given the guardian permission to sell for Rs. 5,075. Of this, Rs. 1,575 was payable to one Mewa Lal who held a zarpeshgi in his own name though actually on behalf of Bhola Kuer, the real beneficiary. A question was raised whether this money had been paid. The District Judge passed an order on August 23, 1934, removing the guardian, expressing an opinion unfavourable to the correctness of the accounts in respect of these items and some others and directing that a more complete check of the accounts be made by a Pleader Commissioner. Lal Babu's application to be appointed guardian was disposed of on February 18, 1935. The application was refused on the ground that the ward would attain the age of 18 years within a few weeks. The District Judge feeling somewhat uncertain whether there being no present guardian, the minor would attain majority at the age or at the age of 21 was inclined to proceed on the assumption that the minor would attain his majority at the age of 18 years. Apparently no one was able to show the District Judge Section 3, Majority Act of 1875 (Act IX of 1875) which has been only to be read to make it absolutely clear that the ward cannot attain majority till he reaches the age of 2l. I mention this because in the circumstances of this case there may be a possibility of the institution of some litigation on behalf of Dayanand and it may avoid trouble if I said clearly that a suit instituted by him in his own name now will be incompetent on the ground of his minority. Lal Babu, though his application to be appointed a guardian was refused, was, however, permitted to continue the proceedings on the petition which he had presented objecting to the accounts of the petitioner. Those proceedings resulted in an Order No. 111, being passed by the Additional District Judge on December 5, 1935.

(3.) The learned Judge after examining the Commissioner's report found that it was not. of much help. He then considered the question whether it was open to him to record any definite finding as to the exact amount due from the ex- guardian or not or whether such finding would be ultra vires or without jurisdiction. He appears to have thought that a Court has power to hold an investigation or scrutiny not for the purpose of ascertaining the present liability of the guardian but for considering whether the accounts are satisfactory enough to entitle a guardian to a discharge or so unsatisfactory as to warrant a sanction to legal action being taken against him. He concluded that the Court has no power to record any definite finding as to the exact amount due from the ex-guardian for which a regular suit against him under the general provisions of the law will have to be brought. Accordingly he ordered "let this proceeding against the ex-guardian be therefore dropped." On December 10, 1935 Lal Babu presented a petition referring to the District Judge's previous order dated August 23, 1934, and asking the Judge to direct the petitioner to pay into Court or to Lal Babu himself the amount of Rs. 5,517-3-0 in respect of which the District Judge had expressed an opinion unfavourable to the correctness of the petitioner's accounts.