Skip to content


Harendra Nath Mukerjee Vs. Ardhendu Kumar Ganguly - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Cal739(2),24Ind.Cas.202
AppellantHarendra Nath Mukerjee
RespondentArdhendu Kumar Ganguly
Cases ReferredMahamaya Debi Chowdhurani v. Gangamoyi Debi Chowdhurani
Excerpt:
guardians and wards act (viii of 1890), sections 7(1), 47 clause (4) - appointment of guardian--condition--security, extent of--object of appeal. - .....to the extent of rs. 30,000. he has appealed against so much of the order as directs him to furnish security to the extent mentioned. the order has been made, under section 7 of the guardians and wards act, which is in the widest possible terms and entitles the court to impose such conditions as may be necessary for the protection of the person or property of the infant. section 34 has obviously no application. that section merely defines the obligations of the guardian of property appointed or declared by the court. clause (a) provides that such a guardian, if required by the court, shall give a bond in the prescribed form. clauses (b), (c) and (d) similarly make it obligatory on the guardian, if required by the court, to deliver his accounts and to pay the balance in his hands.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal is directed against an order for the appointment of a guardian of the properties of two infants on certain conditions as to security. The only ground on which the order is assailed is that the amount of security demanded is excessive.

2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of the appeal on the ground that the order must be deemed to have been made under Section 34 of the Guardians and Wards Act and is consequently not liable to be challenged by way of appeal under Section 47. In our opinion there in no force in this contention. The District Judge has appointed the appellant as guardian of the property of his two infant stepbrothers on the condition that he furnishes security to the extent of Rs. 30,000. He has appealed against so much of the order as directs him to furnish security to the extent mentioned. The order has been made, under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, which is in the widest possible terms and entitles the Court to impose such conditions as may be necessary for the protection of the person or property of the infant. Section 34 has obviously no application. That section merely defines the obligations of the guardian of property appointed or declared by the Court. Clause (a) provides that such a guardian, if required by the Court, shall give a bond in the prescribed form. Clauses (b), (c) and (d) similarly make it obligatory on the guardian, if required by the Court, to deliver his accounts and to pay the balance in his hands into Court. Section 36 deals with the contingency where the guardian has, not given the bond as mentioned in Clause (a) of Section 34 : and Section 45 similarly provides for the contingency where a guardian has not carried out the order of the Court under Clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Section 34. It is plain that the conditional order in this case for the appointment of the appellant as guardian was and could only have been made under Sub-section (1) of Section 7, and such order, it cannot be disputed, is appealable under Clause (4) of Section 47. The appeal is clearly competent.

3. As regards the amount of security the District Judge has found that the income of the immoveable properties and the Government securities which on partition have been allotted to the share of the infants is about Rs. 2,000 a month. But he has directed the guardian to furnish, security to the extent of Rs. 30,000. This amount is plainly excessive. As the guardian will have to render accounts every six months, the estate of the infants will be amply protected if security is taken to the extent of Rs. 15,000. It was pointed out by this Court in the case of Mahamaya Debi Chowdhurani v. Gangamoyi Debi Chowdhurani 1 C.L.J. 180., that as security is required only to guard against malpractices, the amount is sufficient if it affords reasonable protection against malpractices which require time to be carried out.

4. The result is that this appeal is allowed, and the order of the Court below varied in the manner following, namely, that the appellant will be required to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 15,000 instead of Rs. 30,000 as ordered by the Court below. The propriety of the order in so far as it directs that all Government papers and other securities be deposited with the Bank of Bengal in the name of the minors has not been called in question before us and will stand. There will be no order for costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //