The powers of the Court in compelling a guardian to pay into the Court under Section 34(d) of the Guardians and Wards Act can only be exercised in a regular suit, not in summary proceedings.

Leach, C.J.

1. The short question in this petition is whether the insertion of Section 34A in the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by the amending Act of 1929, compels the Court to place a different interpretation upon. Section 34 (d) from that placed upon it by this Court in Harikrishna v. Govindarajulu A.I.R 1926 Mad. 478. On 20th December 1939, the petitioner was appointed the guardian of the property of the two minor sons of one Kotayya. He was directed to submit his accounts once a year. The respondent entered into a surety bond for the due administration of the estate during the minority of the wards. On 19th September 1940, the respondent filed a petition in the guardianship proceedings asking for an order of the Court directing the petitioner to file his accounts and the relevant vouchers. On 15th January 1941 the petitioner filed a statement of accounts in which he showed that he had collected Rs. 3864 and had disbursed Rs. 3822-13-3, leaving a balance in his hands of Rs. 41-2-9. The District Judge sent the accounts for audit under Section 34A. Three reports were presented by the auditor and in the final one he stated that the estate had been wrongly debited with the following sums : Rs. 265; Rs. 319-8-6 and Rs. 225. The first of these amounts had been taken by the petitioner himself by way of reimbursement of advances alleged to have been made by him on account of the expenses in the guardianship proceedings. The petitioner said that the Rs. 319-8-6 represented a repayment to his mother of moneys advanced by her to him as the guardian and that the Rs. 225 represented the discharge of a debt due by the estate to his mother. In the opinion of the auditor all these payments were fictitious. The predecessor of the District Judge who passed the order which is challenged in this petition examined the petitioner and recorded a statement. On that examination the present District Judge held that the auditor was justified in disallowing the three sums of Rs. 265; Rs. 319-8-6 and Rs. 225. Consequently, he ordered the petitioner to pay the aggregate amount into Court. The petitioner challenges the correctness of this order. It is not an order appealable under Section 47, but an application for revision lies under Section 115, Civil P. C, if it was passed without jurisdiction. Section 34 (c) states that the guardian of the property of a ward shall, if 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) says that, if so required, the guardian shall pay into the Court the balance due from him on those accounts, or so much thereof as the Court directs. Section 34A states that when accounts are exhibited by a guardian of the property of a ward in pursuance of a requisition made under Clause (c) of Section 34 or otherwise the Court may appoint a person to audit the accounts. The section does not contemplate anything more than an audit and the Court is given no other powers beyond those which it possessed before the section was inserted in the enactment. In Harikrishna v. Govindarajulu A.I.R l926 Mad. 478, a Bench of this Court (Venkatasubba Rao and Madhavan Nair JJ.) held that Section 34 (d) did not empower the Court to direct the guardian to pay into the Court more than the amount shown to be due in the accounts filed by him. The words "on those accounts" were of importance. If the intention of the Legislature had been that the Court should have power under that section to compel the guardian to pay the amount actually found due the clause would have been worded differently. We are in respectful agreement. Moreover, Sections 35 and 36 contemplate a suit being filed against a guardian who has not fulfilled his duty and is required to make restitution to the estate. Section 35 deals with a case where an administration bond has been taken and Section 36 a case where there is no administration bond.

2. In Subbarami v. Pattabhirami AIR1926Mad977 , P