The representatives of a deceased guardian cannot be sued for the rendition of accounts.

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.:- Shrimati Saira Bibi was appointed guardian of person and property of Rahim Elahi minor, son of Baksh Elahi, and his sisters on 4-7-1929, by the District Judge of Mainpuri. She appointed Haji Nurul Hasan manager of the property. He was required to furnish accounts to her husband Rafi Uddin. Rafi Uddin executed a surety bond in pursuance of the orders of the court. Saira Bibi remained in possession of the property till her death in November 1932. She filed no accounts in the court of the District Judge, Mainpuri. Rahim Elahi attained majority on 27-5-1942. He instituted the present suit on 26-5-1945, against the four sons of Saira Bibi, defendants Nos.1 to 4, against Nurul Hasan, defendant No.6 and against Shrimati Allah Rakkhi, his own sister, defendant No.5.

The reliefs were claimed against defendants 1 to 4 only and the main relief was that a correct and formal account in respect of the income of the property and the income from the business of the plaintiff for the period from 21-7-1928, upto 14-11-1932, during which Saira Bibi was the guardian and manager of the plaintiff and defendant No.5 be taken from defendants Nos.1 to 4, sons and representatives of Saira Bibi deceased, and that any amount which might have remained as unrealised on account of the carelessness and negligence of Saira Bibi be charged against defendants Nos.1 to 4. It was prayed that a decree for a sum of Rs.6,500 or any amount which might be found with reference to the correct account to the extent of the plaintiffs share of the income together with interest at the usual rate be passed in favour of the plaintiff.

Of the various grounds on which the suit was contested by defendants 1 to 3, the most important was that they could not be held liable to render accounts for the period their mother had been the certificated guardian of the plaintiff minor. The learned Civil Judge agreed with this contention for the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

2. We may say at the outset that though the plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the income from the minors property was about Rs.400 a month and the expenditure was about Rs.100 a month and that, therefore, the guardian had saved about Rs.300 a month no evidence was led to substantiate these allegations. The defendants were not called upon to produce accounts for the purpose of providing evidence in support of the plaintiffs contention about definite income and expenditure relating to the minors property. The court could not have, therefore, found even if it was possible for it under the law, as to what amount due to the minors remained with their guardian and passed on to the defendants after the guardians death. No decree could, therefore, have been passed for any such amount in these circumstances.

3. The view of the court below that the representatives of a guardian cannot be sued for rendition of accounts is based on the case reported in - Manmothonath Bose Mullick v. Basanto Kumar, 22 All 332 (A). That case followed the earlier case reported in - Rameshur Tewari v. Kishun Kumar, 1882 All WN 6 (B) which held that the Judge had no power to require the heirs of Bhugwan Das to render an account for all moneys received and disbursed by him in the capacity of guardian, the provisions being personal to the guardian himself. It was considered that from the provisions of S.41, Guardians and Wards Act, Act No. VIII of 1890, it should be inferred that the view expressed in the Allahabad case of 1882 had been considered correct by the Legislature.

4. The Allahabad case reported in 22 All 332 (A), has been differed from in several cases decided by the other High Courts. We have considered those cases and are of opinion that there is nothing in those cases which should lead us to consider the view taken in the Allahabad case to be wrong. The earliest case is reported in-Maharaj Bahadur Singh v. Basanta Kumar Roy, 18 Ind Cas 876 (Cal.) (C). The