Charno @ Charan Kaur vs Bhagwan Singh

G.E. Majithia, J.—This appeal is directed against the order of the Guardian Judge, Ludhiana, who dismissed the application filed u/s 39 of the Guardian and Wards Act (for short ''the Act'') by the appellant.

The appellant moved an application for removal of the respondent from the guardianship of her person and property. The application was declined on the ground that the appellant attained the age of majority on July 6, 1979. An application u/s 40 of the Act was filed by the respondent on July 23, 1979 for his discharge from the guardianship of the person and property of the applicant. In that application the respondent showed his willingless to render accounts as directed by the Court. The appellant appeared before the Guardian Judge and admitted that accounts had been rendered to her and she had satisfied herself. She also admitted that she had received possession of the properties. This application was decided vide order dated September 10, 1981. After the passing of the order discharging the respondent from the guardianship of the person and property of the appellant, the appellant transferred her property vide registered sale deeds dated February 9, 1982, February 10, 1982, February 11, 1982, February 12, 1982 respectively.

The appellant has not challenged the validity of the sales effected by her. A perusal of the order passed by the guardian Judge in case No. 11 of 5-5-1981 decided on September 10, 1981 justified the stand taken by the respondent that he was discharged as guardian of the property and person of the appellant by the Guardian Judge. He rendered accounts and its authenticity was not challenged by the appellant. The fact that after the order of discharge passed by the Guardian Judge, the appellant effected sales of the properties lends credence to the version of the respondent that he was discharged and he rendered accounts which were accepted by the appellant and after that she was put in possession of the property she transferred the same.

The version of the appellant that she was not rendered accounts does not appear to be correct. She attained the age of majority on July 6, 1979. Petition u/s 40 of the Act (in case No. 11 of 5-5-1981) was decided on September 10, 1981. She alienated the property by registered sale deeds in February, 1982. The instant petition was filed on February 24, 1984 i.e. nearly 4-1/2 years after attaining the age of majority. She was married on March 12, 1982 and even if she did not have proper advice after she attained the age of majority, she had the same when she was married and even after the date of her marriage she waited for two years to file the present petition which appears to be lacking good faith.

There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. C.M. No. 310-CII of 1988 is rendered infructuous in view of the orders passed in appeal. No order as to costs.