RANGNATH MISRA Vs. MURARI LAL MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important question of law is raised in this revision, but before we discuss the same it might be of some advantage if the facts are stated in some detail. On June 30, 1923, Misra Rangnath, the applicant before us, applied to be appointed a guardian of Misra Murari Lal, the opposite party. The certificate was granted On August 1, 1923. The minor was a resident of Muttra, and he had some property of his own and further he was a trustee of an endowment along with certain other persons but in the application for guardianship only the private property of the minor was disclosed and no mention was made of the property of which the minor happened to be a trustee. On August 7, 1930, the minor attained majority and on February 7, 1931, he applied that the guardian be directed to render accounts. Mr. Allen, the then District Judge, was of the opinion that either the guardian should file an account or the minor may file a suit, This opinion was expressed on April 14, 1931, and on May 16, 1931 the guardian filed accounts for the period 1927 to 1930; accounts of previous year having already been filed. On August 15, 1931, Murari Lal filed objections to the accounts and he alleged that a large sum was due to him and that the guardian had not disclosed the income that accrued from the endowed property. The reply of the guardian was that accounts could not be gone into in the miscellaneous proceedings and that as a matter of fact a small sum was due to the guardian. Mr. Mushram, the District Judge, appointed Babu MukatBehari as auditor under Section 34-A, Guardians and Wards Act, to audit the accounts.

(2.) The auditor submitted his report on December 17, 1931, stating that no definite conclusions were possible because the accounts were not reliable, and expressed an opinion that as Murari Lal contemplated a suit no further enquiry was desirable. On February 26, 1932 Mr. Smith, the District Judge, held that he had jurisdiction to go into the matter of accounts and that the auditor be asked if he was prepared to give a definite report. On October 12, 1932, the auditor submitted a second report which took the shape of notes criticising the accounts, but even in this report it was not shown as to what sum was due from the guardian in the result, Several objections were taken to this report by the guardian and all of them were sent down to the auditor by the learned District Judge. On September 23, 1933, the auditor submitted a third report and the District Judge transferred the case on November 21, 1933, to the Additional Subordinate Judge who took up the case on. November 25, 1933, and he held that the guardian should not be given any further time for objections and that his previous objections had already been dealt with in the auditor's report. He therefore directed the office to make a calculation on the basis of the report of the auditor and ordered that the guardian should pay what was found to be due by the office. The office made a calculation and on February 13, 1931, the Additional Subordinate Judge passed a formal order on the basis of the office report to the effect that a sum of Rs. 1,757-1-10 should be paid by the guardian to Murari Lal.

(3.) The guardian has filed the present application in revision against the said order and contends firstly that the entire proceedings in the Court below are without jurisdiction, in the sense that the Act does not contemplate a detailed enquiry into the matter of accounts but only a summary investigation and secondly that in any event they are wholly irregular inasmuch as the Court has relied entirely on the auditor's report and has not adjudicated upon the objections of the guardian judicially and that proper opportunities were not given to the guardian to object to the auditor's report. The first question is a question of some importance and we propose to discuss it at some length. While it is contended on behalf of the guardian that on an application of the present kind filed by the minor who has attained majority, which must be deemed to be an application under Section 41(3) of the Act, the only direction which the District Judge can give is to order the guardian to deliver any property in his possession or control belonging to the ward or any accounts in his possession or control relating to any past or present property of the ward and that in this connection the property or accounts which can be delivered are those which are admitted by the guardian. The contention of the opposite party is that on the accounts furnished by the guardian the Court ought to institute a detailed enquiry and give proper directions to the guardian on the basis of such an enquiry.