AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 83

7.39. Section 34(d)-"balance due".-

There seems to be a conflict of decisions of the question whether, in section 34(d), the "balance due" means the balance due as shown in the accounts exhibited by the guardian, or whether it means the balance due as found by the Court on an examination of the accounts. The former view has been taken by a few High Courts, namely, Calcutta,1 Lahore,2 Madras3 and Nagpur.4

In the Lahore case, however, the High Court regretted the position, because the sum was unquestionably due from the guardian. The latter and the wider view has been taken by the Allahabad5 and Patna6 High Courts. Incidentally, the later Lahore view seems to fall in this category.7

1. Jagannath v. Mahesh, (1916) 21 CWN 688 (691): AIR 1916 Cal 459.

2. Hakim Ray v. Khandli Bai, AIR 1930 Lah 420 (421).

3. Harikrishna v. Govindarajulu, AIR 1926 Mad 478 (479, 480) and Gopalaszvami v. Ramaiah AIR 1944 Mad 396 (397).

4. Ramlalsao v. Tan Singh, AIR 1952 Nag 135 (136), para. 6 (Kaushalendra Rao & Deo, JJ.).

5. Sita Ram v. Gobindi, AIR 1924 All 593, dissented from in Ranganath v. Murarilal, AIR 1936 All 179.

6. Mahomed Fariduddin v. Ahmad Abdul, AIR 1928 Pat 255 (258).

7. Chaman Singh v. Har Kaur, AIR 1933 Lah 484 (485).



The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Certain Provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys