P L D 1950 Peshawar 1 (PLP)

Naqshband, for Respondent. ORDER. By his order dated 15th March 1949, the learned Senior Sub‑Judge. Mardan, appointed Mst. Mamora as guardian of the person and property of her two minor children Mst. Zarshada and Nisar Khan. As the property owned by the minors had been valued at Rs. 70.000 by the mother herself in her application for appointment as a gurdian, the learned judge required her to execute a security bond in a sum of Rs. 80,000, with eight sureties, and submit the accounts of the income of the estate for the first time on 1st July, 1940. Mst. Mamora has come up in revision to this Court against the above‑mentioned order, calling into question its correctness and propriety in so far as it required her to execute a bond in such a big sum as Rs. 80,

000. On behalf of her it has been contended that the learned Senior Sub‑Judge has failed to take into consideration the clear provisions of section 34 (a), Guardians and Wards Act, which were to the effect that at the time of the appointment of a person as a guardian of the property of a minor, the person sq appointed shall, if so required by the Court, give a bond, as nearly as may be in the prescribed form, to the judge. of the Court to inure for the benefit of the Judge for the time being, with or without sureties, as may be prescribed, engaging duly to account for‑what he may receive in respect of the property of the Ward. It was urged that the law as it stood made it peremptory on the Judge to take into consideration the benefits which may accrue from the estate of We' minor and in this connec tion the actual value of the property in question was an irrelevant matter. The learned counsel for Rahimdad who was the only contesting party in the Court of the learned Senior Sub‑Judge, once more laid stress upon the value of the property, but could not adduce any argument in support of the view that it was the aloe of the pro. petty which was a material factor in such cases. To me the matter has been clinched by the Rules, framed by this Court under section 50, Subsection (1) Guardians and Wards Act, (vide Notification No. 27‑J, dated 6th May 1947). Rule 5 lays down in clear terms that every guardian of property appointed by the .Court shall be required to execute a bond in sum not less than flue total estimated value of the movable property and three years profits of the entire estate. In the present case a reference to the schedule of. property annexed to the, application shows that there is no movable property in regard to which the guardian has been' appointed, and thus, we are concerned only with the immovable property, consisting of agricultural land and houses, as far as the 9ssessment of the amount of the security bond goes. The value of the immovable property involved is Rs. 70,000 but the record fails to show what is the. approximate annual yield from it. I, therefore, hold that the order of the learned lower Court calling upon the petitioner to furnish a bond in such a big sum as Rs. 80,000 contravenes the statutory provisions as well as the rules framed by this Court. It is necessary to find out the approxi mate annual income of the property, and then to require , the petitioner to ester into a bond in a sum not loss than three years profits. Consequently 1 accept the petition, and, setting aside the order of the learned Senior Sub‑Judge, remand the case to him for investigation on the lines indicated above, and then calling upon the petitioner to furnish a security bond in Form annexed to the rules framed by this Court. The petitioner‑shall have her costs in this Court. Pleader's fee Rs.

60. K M. A, Petition allowed.