Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • L.N Singh and Sarjoo Prasad, for the appellant.
  • Hasan Jam and Saiyid Izhar Hussain, for the respondent.
Judges
  • Kulwant Sahay
  • Macpherson, JJ.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
  • L.N Singh and Sarjoo Prasad, for the appellant.
  • Hasan Jam and Saiyid Izhar Hussain, for the respondent.
Judges
  • Kulwant Sahay
  • Macpherson, JJ.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Kulwant Sahay, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The District Judge of Patna had appointed Saiyid Muhammad Fariduddin as guardian of his minor children, Azizuddin and Musammat Umatul Rasul, under the Guardians and Wards Act. Musammat Umatul Rasul married the respondent, Saiyid Ahmad Abdul Wahab, in February 1925. In July 1925 the respondent applied to the District Judge for the removal of Fariduddin as guardian, for his own appointment as guardian of his wife, and for an examination of Fariduddin's accounts.

The District Judge appointed a pleader-commissioner to audit the guardian's accounts for the period 1918–1925. The commissioner reported that a balance of Rs. 2,326-11-2 ought to be in the guardian's hands for the minor, whereas the guardian's account stated that nothing was due. After objections from both sides and scrutiny of the accounts, the District Judge held that Rs. 4,434-4-7 was due to the minor and ordered the guardian to deposit that sum in Court within one month (order dated 5 July 1926). Appeal no. 207 of 1928 was taken against that order.

The guardian failed to deposit the sum. By order dated 26 August 1926 the District Judge imposed a fine of Rs. 100 on the guardian and warned that a daily fine might follow if the fine and balance were not deposited within ten days. Appeal no. 237 of 1926 was taken against the imposition of that fine.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. What amounts, if any, should be allowed to the guardian upon scrutiny of the accounts (specific contested items included marriage expenses, mortgage proceeds, cook's salary, clothing, nikah ceremony expenses, tutress' salary, municipal taxes, and ordinary household items)?
  2. Whether the District Judge had jurisdiction under section 45(1)(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act to impose a fine on the guardian for failure to pay sums found due after scrutiny of accounts, where those sums exceeded the balance the guardian had shown in his own exhibited accounts under section 34(c) and (d).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (represented by Mr. Lakshmi Narayan Singh)

  • The appellant (the guardian) took the Court through the entirety of the accounts and relied extensively on the commissioner's report to attack items disallowed by the District Judge.
  • With respect to marriage expenses, the guardian asserted that he had spent approximately Rs. 5,766 on the marriage of the minor girl and sought allowance for those expenses.
  • In relation to other contested items the appellant referred to the commissioner's fact-finding and accounting for support.

Respondent's Arguments (represented by Mr. Hasan Jan)

  • Mr. Hasan Jan conceded on fairness certain reasonable sums should be allowed: for marriage expenses he conceded that Rs. 750 would be reasonable (subject to deduction of salami received), for the nikah ceremony he accepted Rs. 50, and he conceded that one-quarter of the cook's salary account should be allowed to the guardian.
  • He contested certain allowances, notably arguing about the correct apportionment for municipal taxes and took a position that the District Judge ought not to have allowed more than the minor's share.
  • On the jurisdictional question, Mr. Hasan Jan contended that the word “exhibit” in section 34(c) indicated that the guardian must prove the items in the account and that, under section 34(d), the Court could call for payment only of the balance as shown by the guardian in the account exhibited under section 34(c); accordingly, the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to impose a fine under section 45 for failure to deposit any sum in excess of the amount shown by the guardian in his exhibited account.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Jagannath Panja v. Mahesh Chandra Pal (Calcutta High Court) Held (per Mookerjee, J.) that the words “those accounts” in s.34(d) refer to the accounts exhibited under s.34(c), so the Court can require payment only of amounts shown by the guardian in his exhibited accounts. The Court rejects this interpretation as incorrect and declines to follow that decision on the point of statutory construction.
Sita Ram (Applicant) v. Musammat Govindi (Opposite Party) (Walsh, C.J.) Held that the Court's power is not limited to the balance the guardian chooses to show; the Court can investigate, amend exhibited accounts by striking out objectionable items, and direct payment of the balance due on a true account, and may act under s.45 for non-payment. The Court agrees with and follows the view in this case as the correct interpretation of s.34 and the Court's jurisdiction to scrutinize and fix the true balance.
Musammat Abasi Begum v. Musammat Yaquti Begum (this Court) Held that to impose a fine under s.45 for non-compliance with an order under s.41(3) it must be shown the sum was actually due; the District Judge may examine accounts and ascertain the sum actually due. The Court relies on this principle to support the view that a judge may examine accounts and determine sums actually due before imposing a fine.
Hari Krishna Chettair v. Govindarajulu Naicker Considered the same statutory question; observations suggested disagreement with Walsh, C.J.'s view, but the remarks were obiter and the question was not finally decided. The Court notes this decision but treats its observations as not decisive (obiter) and not persuasive against the view adopted here.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded in two parts: (A) a detailed, item-by-item accounting analysis of the disputed expenditures, and (B) a statutory construction and jurisdictional analysis concerning the power of the District Judge to call for payment and to impose fines under the Guardians and Wards Act.

A. Accounting analysis (how disputed items were treated)

  • Marriage expenses: Both the commissioner and the District Judge had disallowed the guardian's claim for the full marriage expenditure (the guardian claimed about Rs. 5,766). The Court accepted that the guardian should have sought prior court sanction but found the account of expenditure to be essentially correct though excessive. The Court adopted a compromise: allow a reasonable sum of Rs. 750, deduct the Rs. 245-12-0 received as salami (presented toward marriage expenses), and therefore permit Rs. 504-4-0 as an allowance for marriage expenses.
  • Mortgage proceeds: The guardian had raised money by mortgaging the minor's property without court sanction (one mortgage was made despite an express refusal). The commissioner refused to credit the minor with money raised; the District Judge had directed credit of Rs. 1,100. Both parties agreed that this sum should not be credited to the minor, and the Court directed that Rs. 1,100 be excluded altogether because the mortgages were invalid as against the minor.
  • Cook's salary: Total expenditure on the cook amounted to Rs. 604-11-9. The commissioner allowed a small annual rate; the District Judge disallowed the whole item. The respondent conceded that one-quarter of the amount should be allowed. The Court awarded the guardian credit for one-quarter of Rs. 604-11-9.
  • Clothing and shoes: The commissioner allowed Rs. 375. The District Judge had disallowed an item of Rs. 151-9-6. The Court, on review of the commissioner's findings, allowed the entire Rs. 151-9-6 to the guardian.
  • Nikah ceremony: The commissioner allowed Rs. 373; the District Judge disallowed it. The respondent conceded a reasonable amount should be allowed; the Court fixed Rs. 50 as the proper allowance.
  • Tutoress (moglani): The commissioner allowed Rs. 120 as salary; the District Judge disallowed without giving reasons. The Court noted no finding that the moglani was not engaged and observed the girl was accomplished and presumably required a tutor; the Court allowed the amount.
  • Other household items (repairs, village expenses, foodstuffs, tailoring, medicine): No objection had been taken to these items before the District Judge; the commissioner had carefully considered them, and the Court did not interfere with the commissioner's report on these items.
  • Municipal taxes: The total taxes paid in the years were Rs. 191-12-8. The commissioner disallowed the whole sum for lack of proof that the taxed house belonged to the minor. The District Judge allowed Rs. 80 on the basis that the house was in part the minor's property despite municipal registers, and no cross-objection had been filed by the respondent. The Court declined to interfere with the District Judge's allowance of Rs. 80, noting it could not say on what material the District Judge based the figure but observing no successful cross-objection had been taken.

B. Statutory construction and jurisdictional analysis (s.34 and s.45 of the Guardians and Wards Act)

The appellant contended that under section 34(d) the Court could call on the guardian to pay into Court only the balance shown by the guardian in the accounts exhibited under section 34(c), and therefore the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to impose a fine under section 45 for failure to pay any sum in excess of the balance the guardian had exhibited.

The Court examined the statutory text (s.34 clauses (c) and (d)) and the authorities. It identified a contrary decision (Jagannath Panja) that read s.34(d) restrictively (amount limited to that shown by the guardian), but the Court declined to follow that reasoning. Instead it followed the reasoning in Sita Ram v. Musammat Govindi (Walsh, C.J.), which held that the Court's power to deal with accounts is not limited to the balance the guardian chooses to show: the Court can investigate, amend objectionable items, and direct payment of the balance due upon a true and just account, and may proceed under s.45 where the guardian fails to comply.

The Court reasoned that if the District Judge were bound to accept only the guardian's stated balance, an audit would be pointless. The fact the Court may check the account implies power to call for payment of sums found due on such checking and to take coercive steps under s.45 for non-payment.

The Court also observed supporting practice in the Calcutta High Court's rules (that a guardian is not discharged until he files and passes accounts and pays into Court any balance found due). The Court found Musammat Abasi Begum v. Musammat Yaquti Begum supportive of the proposition that a judge may examine accounts and ascertain the sum actually due before imposing a fine. The Court noted that objections raised in Hari Krishna Chettair v. Govindarajulu Naicker were obiter and not controlling.

The Court considered a respondent submission that the word “exhibit” in s.34(c) may require proof of items; it acknowledged some force in that argument but concluded it was not necessary to place heavy reliance on that wording. The overall statutory scheme, the Court held, showed the District Judge had jurisdiction to examine the accounts and to call upon the guardian to pay any sum he found due; and to act under section 45 if the guardian failed to comply.

Applying these principles to the facts, although the Court held the District Judge had jurisdiction to impose a fine, on the merits — because a substantial portion of the amount originally disallowed by the District Judge had been allowed on this appeal — it was not proper to impose a fine in this particular case. The Court therefore set aside the order imposing the Rs. 100 fine while leaving the District Judge free to act under s.45 in the future if the guardian again failed to deposit sums found due.

Holding and Implications

Holding (core rulings):

  • Appeal no. 207: The appeal was allowed in part. The Court adjusted and allowed specified sums to the guardian for several items (marriage expenses in the amount of Rs. 504-4-0 after deduction of salami, one-quarter of the cook's salary of Rs. 604-11-9, the clothing item of Rs. 151-9-6, Rs. 50 for the nikah, Rs. 120 for the moglani, and permitted other items in accordance with the commissioner's report). The sum of Rs. 1,100 (mortgage proceeds) was excluded. The balance as adjusted was to be deposited in Court. Each party was to bear his own costs.
  • Appeal no. 237: The Court held that the District Judge did have jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act (s.34 and s.45) to scrutinize the guardian's accounts, to require payment of sums found due after such scrutiny, and to impose a fine under s.45 for non-compliance. However, on the facts of this case the fine of Rs. 100 imposed by the District Judge was set aside.

Implications:

  • The decision affirms that a District Judge has jurisdiction to examine and audit a guardian's exhibited accounts, to determine the true balance due after excluding objectionable items, and to require payment of the sums found due; this construction rejects the narrower reading that the Court may only demand the amount that the guardian himself reports in his exhibited account (as articulated in Jagannath Panja).
  • Although the Court recognized and confirmed the District Judge's jurisdiction to impose fines under s.45 for non-payment of sums found due, the Court exercised discretion on the facts to set aside the fine already imposed because the guardian had succeeded in obtaining allowance of substantial items on appeal. The District Judge remains free to proceed under s.45 if the guardian again fails to deposit the properly ascertained balance.
  • Direct consequences for the parties: specific sums were credited to the guardian as allowed by this Court, the balance was ordered deposited in Court, each party will bear their own costs, and the previous fine was set aside.

Note: This summary is confined strictly to the information contained in the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts or legal findings beyond those expressly stated by the Court in the opinion.

Show full summary ...

    Saiyid Muhammad Fariduddin Ahmad v. Saiyid Ahmad Abdul Wahab

    Kulwant Sahay, J.:— This is an appeal on behalf of Saiyid Muhammad Fariduddin who was appointed by the District Judge of Patna to act as guardian of his minor children Azizuddin and Musammat Umatul Rasul under the Guardians and Wards Act. Musammat Umatul Rasul was married to the respondent Saiyid Ahmad Abdul Wahab in February, 1925, and in July, 1925, he made an application before the District Judge for removal of Fariduddin and for his own appointment as guardian of his wife and for examination of the accounts of Fariduddin. The learned District Judge appointed a pleader commissioner to examine and audit the accounts of the guardian for the period from 1918 up to 1925. The learned Commissioner examined the accounts in great detail and he reported that a sum of Rs. 2,326-11-2 ought to be the balance in the hand of the guardian on account of the minor Umatul Rasul. According to, the account submitted by the guardian nothing was due to the estate of the minor.

    Objections were taken to the report by the guardian as well as by Abdul Wahab and the learned District Judge, after consideration of the objections on both sides and after scrutiny of the accounts, has held that a sum of Rs. 4,434-4-7 is due to the estate of the minor Umatul Rasul from the guardian and he ordered that the guardian Fariduddin do deposit in Court the sum of Rs. 4,434-4-7 within one month to be placed in deposit in a bank to the credit of the minor. Appeal no. 207 of 1928 is directed against this order of the District Judge which is dated the 5th July, 1926.

    The guardian failed to deposit the amount in Court as directed and the learned District Judge by his order, dated the 26th August, 1926, imposed a fine of Rs. 100 upon the guardian and observed that if the fine and the balance found due be not deposited within ten days the question of a daily fine will be considered. Appeal no. 237 of 1926 is directed against this order of the District Judge imposing the fine.

    Mr. Lakshmi Narayan Singh on behalf of the appellant has taken us through the whole of the accounts and we have been referred to the report of the commissioner on most of the items attacked by him.

    The first item consists of the marriage expenses of the minor. The learned District Judge has wholly disallowed the marriage expenses. The Commissioner was also of opinion that nothing should be allowed to the guardian on account of the marriage expenses. The case of the appellant is that he spent a sum of Rs. 5,766 and odd over the marriage of his minor girl. The learned District Judge points out that the proper course which ought to have been taken by the guardian was to have applied to the Court for sanction before incurring the expenses relating to the marriage. That would no doubt have been the proper course. The Commissioner, although he disallowed the item relating to the marriage expenses, found that the account as given by the guardian relating to the marriage expenses was correct so far as the amount of expenditure incurred was concerned. The amount, however, is certainly very excessive. In my opinion a reasonable amount ought to be allowed, as the marriage expenses of the minor. Mr. Hasan Jan with his usual fairness has conceded that Rs. 750 would be a reasonable sum to allow for marriage expenses. It appears, however, from the accounts that a sum of Rs. 245-12-0 had been received by the guardian as salami or presents at the time of the marriage and the Commissioner observes that this was by way of an aid as was the custom among Muhammadans towards the expenses of the marriage. The Commissioner did not allow the sum of Rs. 245-12-0 to be credited to the account of the minor as he had disallowed the entire marriage expenses. When it is found that Rs. 245-12-0 had been received by the guardian towards the expenses of the marriage this sum ought to be deducted from the sum of Rs. 750 which we consider to be a reasonable sum to allow for marriage expenses; The result is that a sum of Rs. 504-4-0 will be allowed for marriage expenses after deducting the money received as salami.

    The next item relates to the items covered by certain mortgages. It appears that the guardian, raised a certain sum of money by mortgaging the property of the minor. The mortgages were effected without the sanction of the Court, and in one case inspite of the express order of the Court refusing sanction. The Commissioner refused to credit the estate of the minor with the sum raised by the guardian on mortgage of the minor's property. The learned District Judge, however, although he found that the mortgages were invalid inasmuch as they had been effected without the sanction of the Court, yet directed that the money that was received by the mortgage ought to be credited to the minor. He, therefore, directed that a sum of Rs. 1,100 which was the share of the minor be credited to the minor. Both parties here agree that this sum ought not to be credited to the minor. The mortgages are invalid so far as the minor was concerned. I do not see how the money raised under the mortgages could be credited to the minor without the minor being made liable for it. The proposal of both parties is that this sum should be excluded. I would, therefore, direct that the sum of Rs. 1,100 be excluded altogether.

    The next item is the salary of a cook employed in the family. Expenditure on account of the cook for the years under account comes up to Rs. 604-11-9. The Commissioner allowed a sum representing the salary of the cook at the rate of Rs. 24 a year and a certain sum on account of the fooding expenses. The learned District Judge has disallowed the whole amount. It is conceded on behalf of the respondent that a quarter of the amount ought to be allowed to the guardian. Credit will, therefore, be given to the guardian for one-fourth of Rs. 604-11-9 on account of the cook.

    The next item relates to the expenses for clothes and shoes supplied to the minor during the years under account. The Commissioner allowed Rs. 375 on this account. In his petition of objection before the District Judge the respondent objected to an item of Rs. 151-9-6 and the learned District Judge has disallowed this amount. The Commissioner went into the matter very carefully and if an extra piece of cloth or a fancy sari was supplied to the minor during the period under account there is no reason why this amount should not be allowed to the guardian. In my opinion the entire amount of Rs. 151-9-6 deducted on account of the expenses for clothes and shoes should be allowed to the guardian.

    The next item relates to the expenses of the nikah ceremony. The Commissioner allowed a sum of Rs. 373 on this account. The learned District Judge has disallowed this amount wholly. Mr. Hasan Jan concedes that a reasonable amount ought to be allowed for the nikah ceremony and we fix a sum of Rs. 50 as the proper amount which ought to be allowed for the nikah.

    It appears that a moglani was engaged as a tutoress to the girl and the Commissioner allowed Rs. 120 as her salary. The learned District Judge has disallowed this amount but has given no reasons for disallowing it. It is not stated that the moglani was not engaged at all. It is found that the girl was an accomplished girl and a tutor must have been engaged for her. I am of opinion that the amount should be allowed.

    The other items relate to the repair of houses, village expenses, cost of foodstuffs, tailoring charges and medicine. No objection appears to have been taken on this account before the District Judge. The learned Commissioner very carefully considered these items and we are not inclined to interefere with the report of the Commissioner on these items.

    Mr. Hasan Jan objects to an item of Rs. 80 which has been allowed by the District Judge on account of municipal taxes. He contends that the total amount of taxes paid during the years in suit amounts to Rs. 191-12-8 and the whole of this was disallowed by the Commissioner on the ground that it was not shown that the house for which the tax was paid did belong to the minor. The learned District Judge was of opinion that the house, though entered in the municipal registers in the name of the guardian, was really in part the property of the minor and he allowed a sum of Rs. 80 to be credited to the guardian for municipal taxes. Mr. Hasan Jan argues that the learned Judge was wrong in any event in allowing a sum of Rs. 80 and he ought not to have allowed anything in excess of one-fourth of Rs. 191-12-6 which represented the minor's share in the property. We are not in a position to say upon what material the District Judge found the sum of Rs. 80 to be the amount payable on account of the minor's share. No cross-objection was taken on behalf of the respondent, and we are not inclined to interfere with the learned District Judge's order.

    The result is that appeal no. 207 is allowed in part and the sums specified above will be credited to the guardian and the balance of the amount will be deposited in Court. Each party will bear his own costs.

    The question raised in appeal no. 237 is that under section 45, sub-section (1), clause (b), the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to impose the fine. The contention is that under section 34, clause (d), the Court can call upon the guardian to pay into Court the balance due from the guardian on the accounts exhibited by him under clause (c) of section 34 and that no sum other than the amount shown as due in the account exhibited, by the guardian can be demanded from the guardian by the District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act and no fine can be imposed upon him for his failure to deposit any sum in excess of the amount shown by him in his account exhibited under section 34(c).

    Reference has been made to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Jagannath Panja v. Mahesh Chandra Pal. This case no doubt supports the contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant but with very great respect to the learned Judges I am unable to agree with the opinion expressed by them in that case. Section 34 of the Guardians and Wards Act provides that where a guardian of the property of a ward has been appointed or declared by the Court, and such guardian is not the Collector, he shall

    (c), if so required by the Court exhibit his accounts in the Court at such times and in such form as the Court from time to time directs.

    Clause (d) of the section then says—

    (d) if so required by the Court, pay into the Court, at such time as the Court directs, the balance due from him on those accounts, or so much thereof as the Court directs.

    Mookerjee, J.:— In the case of Jagannath Panja v. Mahesh Chandra Pal, was of opinion that the words “those accounts” in clause (d) of sanction 34 refer to the accounts exhibited by the guardian under clause (c) of the section and the Court can require the guardian to pay into Court only such amount as is shown by the guardian to be the balance in his hand in the account exhibited by him under clause (c) and that the Court has no jurisdiction to call upon the guardian to pay any extra sum which it may find to be due from the guardian on a scrutiny of the accounts exhibited by him. In my opinion this is not the correct interpretation of section 34 of the Act.

    In Sita Ram…(Applicant); v. Musammat Govindi…(Opposite Party).*, Walsh, C.J, considered the decision of Mookerjee, J., in Jagannath Panja v. Mahesh Chandra Pal and refused to follow it and held that the power of a Court in dealing with accounts exhibited by a guardian is not limited by such balance as the guardian chooses to show therein, and that the Court has jurisdiction to investigate the accounts exhibited, to amend them by striking out objectionable items, and to direct the guardian to pay the balance due on a true and just account, and if he fails to pay the balance as found by the Court, he can be dealt with under section 45 of the Act. I am inclined to agree with the view taken by Walsh, A.C.J, and I am of opinion that the Court has jurisdiction to call upon a guardian to pay into Court such sum as he may find to be due after a scrutiny of the account exhibited by him. If no such power had been given to the District Judge the result would be that a scrutiny of the account submitted by the guardian would be of no use whatsoever. If the Court was bound to accept the sum as shown in the account to be actually due from the guardian and if the Court was not entitled to call upon the guardian to pay any sum in excess of what is shown in the account, it would be a mere waste of time to check and audit the account as submitted by the guardian. It is conceded that the Court had jurisdiction to check the account; and if that is so, I think that it follows that the Court has also the jurisdiction to direct the guardian to pay the sums found due on such checking of the account and to act under section 45 on his failure to do so.

    The rules framed by the Calcutta High Court under the Guardians and Wards Act provided that unless otherwise directed a guardian shall, not be discharged from his liabilities until he has filed and passed his accounts, and has paid into Court or as otherwise ordered, any balance which may be found to be due from him. The interpretation placed by Moorkerjee, J., on section 34 was not in accord with the previous interpretation placed upon that section by the Calcutta High Court and by the rules framed by that Court under the Guardians and Wards Act.

    A similar question was raised in this Court in Musammat Abasi Begum v. Musammat Yaquti Begum. No doubt the question raised there was one under section 41, sub-section (3), of the Act; but the principle involved, in that decision applies to the facts of the present case. There it was held that in order to enable the Court to impose a fine under section 45 of the Guardians and Wards Act for non-compliance with an order under section 41(3), it must be shown that the sum for the non-payment of which the fine had been imposed was actually due from the guardian, and if the guardian represents that the sum is not due, no fine can be imposed unless it is first ascertained whether the sum which he has been ordered to pay was really due from him. It was there held that it was open to the District Judge to examine the account and to ascertain the sum actually due.

    In Hari Krishna Chettair v. Govindarajulu Naicker, the question was considered and the learned Judges appear to be inclined not to agree with the view taken by Walsh, A.C.J, in Sita Ram…(Applicant); v. Musammat Govindi…(Opposite Party).* and to agree with the view taken by Moorkerji, J., in Jagannath Panja's case, but the question was not decided and the observations were obiter dicta.

    Mr. Hasan Jan on behalf of the respondent has contended that the word “exhibit” in clause (c) of section 34 indicates that the guardian is bound to prove the items contained in the account. He refers to the wording in section 41, sub-sections (3) and (4), where the word used is “deliver” and to the wording of section 34, clause (b), where also the word “deliver” is used. There may be some force in the contention of Mr. Hasan Jan and the word “exhibit” in clause (c) of section 34 may mean something more than mere filing or delivering the accounts; but it is not necessary to lay any very great stress upon the word “exhibit” in clause (c). The whole tenor of the Act shows that the District Judge has jurisdiction to examine the accounts; and if that is so, it is clearly within the jurisdiction of the District Judge to call upon, the guardian to pay into Court any sum that he may find due upon a true account of the affairs of the minor. I am, therefore, of opinion that the learned District Judge was within his jurisdiction in imposing the fine. On the merits, however, having regard to the fact that a substantial portion of the amount disallowed by the District Judge has been allowed by this Court, it is not proper to impose a fine upon the guardian in the present case.

    The order imposing the fine is, therefore, set aside. It will no doubt he open to the District Judge to act under this section if the guardian again fails to deposit the amount found due within the time to be fixed by him.

    Macpherson, J.:— I agree.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Saiyid Muhammad Fariduddin Ahmad v. Saiyid Ahmad Abdul Wahab
    (Nov 2, 1927)