JUDGMENT

Deoki Nandan, J. - This First Appeal is directed against an order of the Court of the First Additional District Judge, Bijnor, rejecting an application made by the appellant for a direction to the respondent, who was the guardian of his person and property, to submit an account of the appellant's property and its income, and to deposit the same in Court as also to deliver all the properties to the appellant who had attained majority. The application pruports to have been made under Section 41(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in Case No. 20 of 1963 of the court of the District Judge, Bijnor. It bears the date 1st September, 1975 but it appears to have been filed on the 3rd September, 1975. Case No. 20 of 1963 of the Court of the District Judge, Bijnor was the number at which the respondent's application for his appointment as the guardian of the person and property of the appellant was registered. The respondent was appointed guardian of the person and property of the appellant by order dated the 25th May, 1963 of the Court of the District Judge, Bijnor. The order contained the direction that he shall manage the minor's property as a prudent man and shall not transfer any portion of it without express permission of the court and shall submit an account of the income and expenditure of the minor's property on the 1st November each year. The application giving rise to the present appeal stated that the respondent was appointed guardian of the appellant's property, of which details were annexed to the application for his appointment as the guardian that the respondent was appointed guardian by order dated the 30th May, 1963 and was managing the property, that he was required to submit account and deposit the income, but he failed to submit any account of income or profits, and that the income from the property was not less than Rs. 2000/- per year. It was alleged that the property remained in the respondent's possession since 1963, and he must submit his account. In the order under appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held that the remedy of the appellant lay by way of a regular suit and not by way of the application made by him, inasmuch as the respondent had claimed that there was no balance of any income of the appellant's property with him. The learned Additional District Judge held that under Section 34 of the Guardians and Wards Ad, 1890, he could pass orders only in respect of accounts admitted by the guardian to be due from him or those that were due from him on accounts submitted by him.

2. At the outset, there was a preliminary objection to the competence of the appeal, inasmuch as Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act does not provide for an appeal from an order passed under Section 34 or under Section 41. I may, in this context, observe that the learned counsel for the appellant stated categorically that the appellant had invoked the jurisdiction of the District Court under Section 41(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, after the cessation of the guardianship when the appellant attained majority. Learned counsel could not, therefore, dispute the position that an appeal from an order passed on an application made under Section 41(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act was not competent. He accordingly requested the court to hear the appeal as a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since there was no objection to the Court's doing so and since it appears to me that the impugned order of the court of the Additional District Judge did not call for any interference, I proceeded to fully hear the matter on the merits also, rather than to first allow the appellant to formally convert the appeal into a revision and then to hear the matter finally.

3. After the order, dated the 25th May, 1963, appointing the respondent as the appellant's guardian, a statement of account appears to have been filed on the 23rd November, 1963 which was ordered to be placed on the file by the court's order