PARVATHAMMAL Vs. CHOKALINGA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Anganna Chetti had three wives. At his death he left surviving him a daughter by his first wife, named Thayammal, and Parvathammal, his third wife. Application was made to the District Court of Salem to appoint a guardian for the estate of Parvathammal. As the result of a razinama put in by the contending parties, it was arranged that Chokkalinga Chetti should be guardian of Thayammal. Subsequently Gurunatha Chetti was appointed by Court guardian of the person and property of the minor Parvathammal, he being her own father. In 1908 an: application was made to the Court to allot a sum of money for the marriage expenses of the minor Thayammal. The District Judge, after considering all the circumstances of the case, fixed Rs. 1,600 as a proper sum to be paid out of the estate for the said marriage, and, on appeal to this Court, the order was confirmed. Parvathammal has now attained majority and her guardian Gurunatha Chetti has been discharged. Chokkalinga Chetti now seeks to have the order, directing the minor s guardian to pay Rs. 1,600 for the marriage expenses of Thayammal, executed under the Civil Procedure Code by attachment and sale of the property of Parvathammal and the District Judge has made an order accordingly.

(2.) Objection has been taken in appeal that the Court was not competent to pass an order of this kind, as though it was an order passed between parties in execution orders passed under the Guardians and Wards Act, being by way of administrative directions to the guardian.

(3.) Under Section 34 of the Guardian and Wards Act, a guardian may apply, for the maintenance, education and advancement of the ward and of such persons as are dependent on him, and for the celebration of ceremonies to which the ward or any of the persons dependent on him may be a party, such portion of the income of the property of the ward as the Court may direct to be employed for that purpose. But this Act contains no provision for the execution of such orders as decrees of the Court. It is, however, sought to justify the District Judge s order by a reference to Section 36, Civil Procedure Code. That Section says: "The provisions of this Code relating to the execution of decrees shall, so far as they are applicable, be deemed to apply to the execution of orders" and an "order" has been defined in Section 2 (14) of the Civil Procedure Code as "the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court which is not a decree". I do not think that the order passed by the District Judge in 1908 was such an order as is contemplated in this section. Moreover the order was one intended to be obeyed by the guardian appointed by the Court and to relate to the property of the minor who was a ward of Court. There is now no guardian and no minor. It is, therefore, not possible to execute it against Parvathammal, who has now become a major, without allowing her an opportunity to contest the order in her own right. In Romma Somakka v. Kodidala Pedda Ramiah (1) to which I was a party, it was pointed out by Abdur Rahim, J., that the Guardians and Wards Act does not provide any machinery for deciding upon and enforcing claims of third parties for or against a ward, as those are left to be regulated by ordinary proceedings by suits.