A SAHADEVAN PILLAI Vs. T VASANTHAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. A. O. No. 994 of 1992 is against the order of the District judge of Kanyakumari, dated 13. 10. 1992 in O. P. No. 26 of 1991. The respondents in o. P. No. 26 of 1991 are the appellants in this appeal. A. A. O. No. 1139 of 1992 is preferred against the order of the District Judge of Kanyakumari, dated 13. 10. 1992 in O. P. No. 66 of 1991. The sole petitioner in O. P. No. 66 of 1991 is the appellant in the second appeal. The 1st appellant A. Sahadevan Pillai is the husband of the 2nd appellant Bhagavathi Ammal and father of the 3rd appellant krishna Kumar. The 1st respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent. The respondents herein arc the petitioners in O. P. No. 26 of 1991 and respondents in o. P. No. 66 of 1991. Both the petitions have been disposed of by the learned district Judge by a common order dated 13. 10. 1992, evidence having been recorded in O. P. No. 26 of 1991. the parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in A. A. O. No. 994 of 1992.

(2.) THE short point that arises for consideration in these two appeals is, as to who is entitled to and who is the fit and proper person to be appointed as the guardian for the person and property of minor aiswarya,who unfortunately lost both the parents in a short interval of about two weeks. THE respon-dents are the maternal grand - parents of the minor Aiswarya, who is the daughter of Padmakumar (son of the appellants 1 and 2) and Indumathi (daughter of the respondents ). THE maternal grandparents filed O. P. No. 26 of 1991 for appointing themselves as the guardian of the person and properties of the minor. THE paternal grand-father/lst appellant filed O. P. No. 66 of 1991 for the same relief. In the petition filed by the maternal grand-parents in o. P. No. 26 of 1991, both the paternal grand-parents and one paternal uncle were made as party respondents besides two banks. THE learned District Judge passed a common order on 13. 10. 1992 allowing O. P. No. 26 of 1991 filed by the maternal grand-parents and dismissing O. P. No. 66 of 1991 filed by the paternal grandfather. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge has appointed the maternal grand-mother/lst respondent herein as the guardian of the person and property of the minor inclusive of her share in the joint family properties. Hence these two appeals by the paternal grand-parents and paternal uncle of the minor.

(3.) IN N. R. Raghavachari' 's Hindu Law, 8th edition, para. 183 at page 157 it has been stated that guardians are of four kinds and they are (1) Natural guardian' (2) Testamentary guardian' (3) Court guardians'and (4) De facto guardians. It is useful to reproduce paragraph 184 from that book: "the natural guardian is the one who, by virtue of his or her relationship to the child has a claim to be his/her guardian. The father' 's right to be the guardian of the person and property of the minor is paramount and comes first. Under the Hindu Law nobody else other than the father and the mother of the minor js entitled as a matter of natural right to be and to act as the guardian of a minor' 's person and property. Where there is no such natural person alive, recourse must be had to the court, as representing the rights of the King for the appointment of a guardian. " At page 1025 of the same book it has been stated that a hindu child is looked upon not only as belonging to the parents but as belonging also to the family of which the parents are members.