The court administering the Guardians and Wards Act has the jurisdiction to scrutinise the guardian's account, direct him to deposit the balance amount fixed by the court, and enforce its orders to recover the amount from the guardian and his assets.

The main point to be decided is whether the court which appointed a guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter referred to as the act) has the jurisdiction to scrutinise the accounts filed by the guardian and to direct him to pay the balance amount as determined by the court.

2. In respect of the properties of the 1st respondent in CRP. 1920 of 1986, who is the revision petitioner in CRP. 2266 of 1986, (who is hereinafter referred to as the ex-minor) the District Court, Thodupuzha appointed her mother as her guardian in a guardians and wards petition. 4.65 acres of cardamom land belonging to the minor was in the possession of one A.M.A. Sultan as the power of attorney holder of the guardian. He assumed possession and management of the property from 19-10-1972 onwards. The minor attained 21 years of age on 10-2-1978. She filed I.A.155 of 1979 for a direction to hand over possession of the property along with the profits collected by the power of attorney holder. Before the lower court the above said A.M.A. Sultan filed a counter affidavit contending that he had put the property in the possession of his son, who is the 1st revision petitioner in C.R.P. 1920 of 1986. Petitioners 2 to 10 in. that C.R.P. are the wife and other children of the said A.M.A. Sultan. For convenience sake they are hereinafter referred to as lessees.

3. The said AM. A. Sultan died on 27-7-1982 and his legal representatives were impleaded in the proceedings. By Order dated 5-11-1979 the District Court directed the lessees to hand over possession of the property to the ex-minor. That order was challenged before this Court in C.R.P. 2910 of 1979. This Court by order dated 6-3-1981 confirmed the order of the District Court. A special leave petition against the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed by that Court. The property was delivered to the ex-minor on 15-11-1979 through court,

4. It would appear that the court directed delivery of property at the first instance without disposing of the prayer for payment of the income from the property. After the disposal of the C.R.P. before this Court, the application was again considered by the lower court. Both sides adduced evidence. By the order uudcr challenge in C.R.P.Nos.1920 of 2266 of 1986 the lower court fixed the amount of au ears of income due from the lessees and directed them to deposit that amount in court. The lessees are challenging that order in C.R.P.1920 of 1986. The ex-minor is challenging that order in CRP. 2266 of 1986.

5. Since the lessees did not pay the amount, the ex-minor filed I.A.No.605 of 1986 for recovering the amount from the assets of deceased A.M.A. Sultan in the hands of the lessees. On that application the Court ordered attachment of the properties scheduled to the application and directed the ex-minor to take steps for the sale of the property. The lessees are challenging that order in C.R.P. 731 of 1987.

6. According to the lessees, a court exercising jurisdiction under the Act has no jurisdiction to scrutinise the accounts filed by the guardian or to compel the guardian to deposit any balance profit due from him as fixed by the court. The remedy available to the minor after he attains majority is to file a suit against the guardian to recover any amount that may be due from the receiver. According to their learned counsel, S.41(3)of the Act empowers the court only to require the guardian or his legal representative to direct delivery of any property m 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. According to the learned counsel, that sub-section does not envisage scrutiny of the accounts of the guardian in order to fix the actual amount in the hands of the guardian or the issue of any direction to deposit such arrears.

7. Before examining this question it may be observed that in CRP.No.2910 of 1979 against the direction to deliver possessio