S SOORA REDDI Vs. S CHENNA REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 19 and 47, Guardians and Wards Act against the order" of the learned District Judge of Cuddappah by which the learned District Judge dismissed an application by the appellant herein under Section 10 of the same statute for a declaration that he is the guardian of his minor son who was born on 15th April 1944.

(2.) The two grounds on which the learned District Judge dismissed the application are firstly, that since the death of the minor's mother immediately after the birth of the minor, the father, the appellant, had married a second wife and is now living in the house of the second wife's father. The second reason which impelled the learned Judge to reject the application is that the petition to the lower Court was made 19-. months after and therefore there was undue delay in the making of it. In our opinion, the learned Judge's view that the application was made 19 months later is based upon a misconception.

(3.) A few facts have to be stated in order to-understand the exact situation. The minor was born on 15th April 1944 and the mother died immediately. The joint family of which the. appellant was a member consisted of himself and his elder brother, respondent 1 and it is contend-ed that respondent 2, the sister's husband of the appellant and respondent 1, is also a member of the family having been adopted into it as an-illatom son-in-law. Therefore the admitted members of the family are the petitioner and respondent 1 and their children, but respondent 2 also claims to be a member of the family. It is alleged that on account of the appellant not admitting the right of respondent 2 as an illatom son-in-law, there were disputes between the parties which necessitated the appellant leaving the family house in July 1945. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that his client was driven, out of the family house, which on the other hand, Mr. K. E. Bajagopalachari for respondent 1 submits that it was rather a case of desertion from the family house and not one of having beendriven out. Whatever that might be, it is clear that the appellant was living in the family house until July 1945. In about September 1945 the appellant brought a suit for partition of the joint family properties for making respondents l and 2 parties to the suit. There are parties with whom we are not concerned. It is after, the filing of the partition suit, i. e. nearly, four months later, on 27th. February 1946 that the present application under Section 10 was made to the lower Court. The learned counsel for respondent 1 also states that within a short time after the second marriage it was that the appellant brought the suit for partition.