M. Rama Rao vs K. Rengaswamy Rao

In January 1920 respondent applied to be discharged from guardianship. Two years later the District Judge granted him a discharge u/s 40 of

the Act, at the same times directing him u/s 41(3) to deliver his accounts and all property in his possession belonging ''to the minor. In doing so, the

District Judge expressed the opinion that ho could not make an investigation into the accounts. The ruling he relied on Nabu Bopari v. Sheikh

Mahomed [1900] 5 C.W.N. 207 has no application hero ; for it dealt with the case of a minor who had come of age.

When the Court has ordered a, guardian u/s 41(3) to deliver accounts and property in Ills possession, there is still a further question to be

decided, that is to say, whether he is to be discharged from further liability under the next subjection, I am unable to sec how it is to be decided

without an investigation into the accounts. I cannot for a moment concede that the Court is bound to accept without scrutiny any account he

chooses to submit or to allow him to deliver only such property as he admits himself to possess.

In this case the District Judge has not yet passed any order u/s 41(4). The records will be returned. The parties may apply to him for further

orders. There will be no order as to costs in this Court.