LAWS(PVC)-1917-3-43

NADANALIGI KURUGODAPPA Vs. ANGADI SOOGAMMA

Decided On March 06, 1917
NADANALIGI KURUGODAPPA Appellant
V/S
ANGADI SOOGAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the order of the District Judge, which we are asked to revise, has arisen out of the following facts: One Angadi Soogamma, acting as next friend of her minor son Nanjundappa who had been adopted into another family, brought a suit (Original Suit No. 24 of 1910) for the recovery of considerable properties belonging to the minor, and obtained, on compromise, a decree for the possession of moveable properties worth about Rs. 90,000. Under Order XXXII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, she was required to furnish security for the cash and jewels handed over to her. The petitioner before us, Kurugodappa by name, stood surety for her to the extent of Rs. 50,000 and executed a bond in April, 1911. In February 1914, Soogamma presented an original petition to the District Judge alleging, inter alia, that Kurugodappa out of Rs. 44,945 in cash, jewels and bonds belonging to the minor s estate delivered to him by the Court, had retained Rs. 12,340 in his own hands, that he claimed and got Rs. 2,000 as consideration for standing surety calculated at the rate of one quarter of the minor s income, and that he had borrowed two sums of Rs. 500 and Rs. 2,600 from the minor s estate and had failed to repay them in full. She therefore asked the Court to cancel his security bond, to direct him to pay into Court all the monies received by him, and to make such other directions as might be deemed sufficient to protect the minor s property from waste. It may here be noted that the first request, if granted, would have defeated the very object of requiring the security, namely, that the minor s estate should be guaranteed against waste and mismanagement: cf. Subroya Chetty v. Ragammall (1905) I.L.R., 28 Mad., 161.

(2.) The District Judge upon this petition held an enquiry and came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 10,600 handed over to Soogamma and Kurugodappa by the minor s vakil had not been accounted for satisfactorily, that both were responsible for making it good to the estate of the minor, and finally he ordered the attachment of Kurugodappa s property to the value of Rs. 10,600.

(3.) An objection is now taken that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to attach the petitioner s property, and on this ground I think we must set aside the order.