Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Sita Ram vs Musammat Govindi on 30 April, 1924 cites

Jagannath Panja vs Mahesh Chandra Pal on 10 July, 1916

The argument for the guardian is that the court's power to direct payment of the balance is limited by such balance as the guardian chooses to show in the account which he exhibits. Indeed this argument is supported by the express language of more than one decision which has been cited to us from the reports of the High Court at Calcutta. It is not without significance that the cases cited are not to be found in the authorized Law Reports. We propose to deal with only one of them, as illustrating the argument on behalf of the guardian, namely, Jagannath Panja v. Mahesh Chandra Pal (1916) 21 C.W.N. 688, which carries with it the authority of the well known Judge, Sir Ashutosh Mukerjee and of Mr. Cuming. They definitely held that in the case before them, on the accounts exhibited under Section 34(c) the only order which the Court was competent to make was to call upon the guardian to bring, into court the sum so shown. We think that the learned Judges could hardly have realized the logical consequence of so holding. The word "account" used in this connection must mean a just and true account. It is inconceivable that the Legislature intended to enable the guardian to satisfy this duty under Section 34(c) by saying in the account: "As to a sum of Rs. 2,000, 1 yesterday paid this away to an insistent creditor of mine to prevent my arrest, and I am therefore unable to produce this sum of money, and the balance due from me is 8 annas." It is quite clear that it would be the duty of the court on having such an account presented to it to strike out the sum of Rs. 2,000 paid away by the guardian for his own purpose, and to add it to the balance of 8 annas as shown by the guardian in the accounts, thereby making a balance due to the ward of Rs. 2,000-8-0. The court may do it of course in one of two ways. Where the amount is a liquidated sum and clearly earmarked for a purpose, it can amend the accounts by striking; out the objectionable amount or it may reject the accounts on the ground that it is an untrue account of the guardian's liability and direct the guardian to submit a fresh account within a' limited time. But it was never intended that it was not the duty of the court, but the duty of the guardian, to decide what is the balance due on a true and just account. Then comes into play Sub-section (d) of the same Section (Section 34) by which the court directs the guardian to pay the balance. If this interpretation is correct and this procedure is adopted, disciplinary action can be brought to bear on the guardian without the embarrassment from which the learned Judge seems to have suffered in this case, and without the court being compelled to hold that its hands were tied because the balance directed to be paid was not a sum actually in the hands of the guardian. If the guardian fails to pay the balance found by the court on a correct account, he becomes contumacious and can be dealt with under Section 45. Sub-section (b) of Section 45 clearly contemplated that such penalties are applicable to the misconduct of the guardian either in failing to exhibit the accounts--it would be the case, of course, if original accounts such as we have suggested by way of illustration being rejected, he fails to exhibit a true amended account--or to pay into court the balance due as found by the court upon the basis of a true and just account. We think that this is the only common sense view of the matter and it is the only productive interpretation which can be put upon these provisions.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1