Order for payment of interest if can be passed.

The guardian of the property of the minors is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. By an order of the District Judge, Anantapur, dated 10th December, 1941, in O. P. No. 8 of 1941, the petitioner was appointed as the guardian of the property, and under the terms of the order he was directed that he should on no account keep in his hands more than Rs.100 after making allowance for the monthly expenditure and that he should deposit into Court all sums over and above Rs.100 as and when the cash balance with him exceeded the said amount. The petitiorer filed a memo, on the 20th March, 1946, for fixing his remuneration and praved that a remuneration of 5 per cent, be fixed on the gross realisations, as the remuneration that was fixed in the order was insufficient in view of the heavy work which he did on behalf of the estate. The learned District Judge made an order on 29th March, 1946, that “the remuneration is fixed at five per cent, on the realisation.” The petitioner was discharged, and the Official Receiver was appointed as the guardian of the property in about April, 1948. The matter again came up before the District Judge on the 26th June, 1948, when it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the 5 per cent, that was directed to be paid by the previous order was on the gross collections and not on the net realisations. The learned District Judge held that the 5 per cent, that the petitioner was entitled to was only on the net realisations and allowed the other prayer in his petition that the order should be given retrospective effect.

In view of the order dated 26th June, 1948, whereby the commission was fixed only at 5 per cent, on the net realisations it was found that the petitioner was to pay back into Court certain amounts which he retained as part of his commission on the basis that his remuneration was 5 per cent, on the gross realisations, and when the matter came up before the Court the following order was passed on the 17th Novermber, 1948:

“After scrutinising the accounts, the vakil for the ex-property guardian has filed a memo, that the sums of Rs. 217-7-0, Rs. 58-7-2 and Rs. 95-11-0 are payable by him. He has to repay another sum of Rs. 10 paid to Mr. T. Kothandarama Rao, which has been by mistake entered twice on 13th November, 1946, and again on 24th February, 1947”.

Apart from this, the learned District Judge passed an order that the petitioner was liable to pay interest at 3 per cent, on sums which he retained over and above the sum of Rs. 100, in contravention of the order appointing him as guardian. Against this order this revision petition has been filed.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the guardian having already adjusted the sums on the basis of his view of the order relating to the fixing of commission at 5 per cent., he understanding it to be 5 per cent, on the gross realisations, and having filed a statement of account on that basis it is not open to the Court to call upon the guardian to pay into Court the sum so adjusted, and that, in any event it is not open to the Court to call upon the guardian appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act to pay into Court any sum over and above the sum as found in the statement of account furnished by him to Court. For this proposition Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on section 34(d) of the Guardians and Wards Act and the decisions in Gopalaswamy v. Ramayya1, and Hari Krishna Chettiar v. Govindarajulu Naicker2. There is force in this contention; but I do not think the question arises for decision before me in view of the admission of the guardian before the learned Judge that he is liable to repay, and it is therefore not necessary to consider this argument raised on behalf of the petitioner.

As regards the second contention as to the liability of the guardian to pay interest in respect of sums retained by him over and above what he was permitted, the learned Judge does not refer to any provi