Back
1951 Supreme(Nagpur) 62
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
R Kaushalendra Rao, Deo
RAMLALSAO – Appellant
Versus
TANSINGH LALSINGH – Respondent
First Appeal No. 127 of 1944
Decided on : 05-07-1951
A L Halve, M D Khandekar, R S Dabir, Advocates
A guardian is liable to render accounts to the ward and a suit for rendition of accounts lies if the accounts are not stated or settled.
Headnote:
GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT - RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS - GUARDIAN'S LIABILITY TO ACCOUNT - COURT'S JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR ACCOUNTS - MAINTAINABILITY - DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS AND INTERROGATORIES - RIGHT OF PARTIES - ERRORS IN ACCOUNTS - REOPENING OF ACCOUNTS - FIDUCIARY RELATION - BURDEN OF PROOF - PRELIMINARY DECREE - DIRECTIONS FOR RENDERING ACCOUNTS.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants were appointed as guardians of the plaintiff's property by the Additional District Judge. They took possession of the property in February 1933 and were in possession till May 1942. During their management, they exhibited abstracts of accounts from March 1933 to May 1942. The plaintiff filed a suit for rendition of accounts alleging inaccuracies, discrepancies, and fraudulent entries in the accounts. The defendants admitted liability to render accounts but denied possession of any property of the plaintiff and pleaded that the accounts had been duly rendered and accepted by the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the defendants were liable to render accounts to the plaintiff. The Court found that the accounts were not properly maintained and the defendants had not furnished true accounts to the Guardians and Wards Court. The Court also held that the plaintiff's suit for rendition of accounts was maintainable and that the defendants' own admission in the written statement clearly established the case for reopening of the accounts.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants were liable to render accounts to the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff's suit for rendition of accounts was maintainable? 3. Whether the accounts were properly maintained and the defendants had furnished true accounts to the Guardians and Wards Court? 4. Whether the defendants' own admission in the written statement clearly established the case for reopening of the accounts?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Section 34(c) and (d) of the Guardians and Wards Act, the guardian shall exhibit his accounts in the Court and pay into the Court the balance due from him on those accounts. This does not relieve the guardian of his responsibility for their correctness, nor does the passing of such accounts relieve the guardian of his liability to account to the ward. 2. A suit for rendition of accounts lies if the accounts are not stated or settled. In the instant case, the accounts were not stated or settled and therefore the plaintiff's suit was maintainable. 3. The Court found that the accounts were not properly maintained and the defendants had not furnished true accounts to the Guardians and Wards Court. The Court relied on the oral evidence of the parties and the comparison of the abstracts with the account books. 4. The defendants' own admission in the written statement clearly established the case for reopening of the accounts.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs. The Court directed the defendants to render accounts of their management from March 1933 to May 1942. The Court also appointed a Commissioner to take accounts and gave directions for the rendering of accounts.
1. This is defendants' appeal against the preliminary decree in a suit for rendition of accounts.
2. The defendants were the guardians of the property of the plaintiff, appointed by the Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, in Guardian and Wards case No. 53 of 1932. They took possession of the property, both movable and immovable, in February 1933 (according to the defendants on the 19th March 1933. and were in possession till the 13th May 1942 when they put the plaintiff in possession of property as per inventories.
3. During the period of their management the defendants exhibited to the Court abstracts of accounts from the 19th March 1933 to 13th May 1942. On an application made by the plaintiff to direct the defendants to render accounts of their management, the Court directed the plaintiff to institute a civil suit for rendition of accounts and did not grant a discharge to the defendants under S. 41, sub-s. (4. of the Guardians and Wards Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
4. The plaintiff's case is that these accounts were not only inaccurate and discrepant with the books of account maintained by the defendants but were also ''fraudulent, false and bogus'' as shown in the plaint schedules. It was alleged that the defendants did not account for all the money-bonds and surrender-deeds in their possession, for village profits of 'mouza' Bamaipur and for lease money of Nawegaon fields, (b. that 14 acres of land at 'mouza' Bamaipur was fraudulently put in possession of tenants, (c. that the salary of Shamlal, the private servant of defendant No. 1 was falsely debited to the plaintiff, and (d. that the defendant No. 1 used to sell the produce of the plaintiff's fields to himself and retain the proceeds and that he has therefore to account for the fair sale proceeds and pay interest on the amounts remaining with him. Lastly, it was urged that the defendants did not manage the property diligently for the benefit of the plaintiff and were liable to make good the loss suffered by the plaintiff.
5. The defendants admitted liability to render account from the 19th March 1933 till 13th May 1942. They however denied possession of any property of the plaintiff and pleaded that the accounts had been duly rendered to and accepted by the Court and consequently the present suit for accounts was not maintainable. The defendants also filed a schedule replying to each allegation in the plaint schedule.
6. Under S. 34 (c. and (d. of the Act the guardian shall, if so required by the Court, exhibit his accounts in the Court at such times and in such form and pay into the Court at such times the balance due from him on those accounts, or so much thereof, as the Court from time to time directs. This is what the defendants have done in the instant case. They filed abstracts of income and expenditure every year. They were evidently to be checked by the Court reader, but it is not clear how this was done. There are notes in the order-sheets that these accounts were ''checked & found correct'', ''perused and passed'', ''checked and passed''. Filing of such accounts does not relieve the guardian of his responsibility for their correctness, nor does the passing of such accounts relieve the guardian of his liability to account to the ward. 'PARTAB SINGH v. KHURRAM SINGH', It is true that the Judge must look into the accounts exhibited from time to time but the investigation is to be only a summary investigation of the management of the guardian to see that he has not incurred any expenditure prohibited by the Court and has acted generally according to its directions and to allow the settlement of accounts stand over till the time of discharge. It is obvious that the Court is not in a position to effectively, audit them. There is no obligation on the Court after the minor attains majority to review the accounts or to direct the guardian to render accounts afresh. 'MUHAMMAD KHADIM HUSAIN v. AHMAD HASAN', The contrary view taken in 'SITA RAM v. MT. GO
