ANTU MAHTON Vs. RAMRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application in revision arises out of an order passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Arrah, dated the 5th of August, 1954, rejecting summarily the application filed by the petitioner under Section 39 of the Guardians and Wards Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for discharge of the opposite party and for his own appointment as the guardian of a minor named Jagnarain Singh, son of the Sukhdeo Singh.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points raised in this case it will be necessary to give, a few facts leading to the institution of the proceeding. On the 7th of February, 1953, the opposite party Ramraj Singh filed an application for being appointed as the guardian of the aforesaid minor. He claimed to be the maternal uncle of the minor concerned and stated in his application that the minor had no other near relation besides him except the mother. He was appointed guardian by the District Judge of Shahabad on the 18th of May, 1953. On the 18th of February, 1954, the petitioner filed an application under Section 39 of the Act. He stated that he was the own maternal uncle of the minor and that the opposite party secured an order for his own appointment as guardian of the minor after having suppressed the processes and having put false materials before the Court. It was also stated in the petition that the security offered by the opposite party as required by the District Judge was given with respect to land over which he had no claim of any right or title. It was further alleged that the mother of the minor was in the keeping of one Khobhari Mahton, a relation of the opposite party and she has got a son through that Khobhari Mahton. A still more serious allegation was made against the opposite party to the effect that he had got the entire property of the minor transferred by a registered sale deed in favour of the wife of the said Khobhari Mahton but when the petitioner raised agitation a reconveyance was taken from his wife. It was, therefore, stated that the interest of the opposite party was adverse to that of the minor. On these grounds a prayer was made for the discharge of the opposite party and for the appointment of the petitioner as the guardian of the minor.

(3.) This application was admitted by the District Judge on the 8th of April, 1954, who passed an order for issue of notice to the opposite party asking him to show cause as to why he should not be discharged. On the 21st of May, 1954, one Ramchandra Singh, claiming to be an uncle of the minor, made an application for his own appointment as guardian of the minor and for the discharge of the opposite party. On the 8th of June, 1954, an application purported to have been filed on behalf of Musammat Ramdasi, mother of the minor, was made for the discharge of the opposite party and for the appointment of Ramchandra Singh as guardian. On that very date the opposite party appeared and filed an application to be relieved of guardianship inasmuch as two designing persons have filed objection to his continuing as guardian of the boy. He, however, did not challenge, any of the statements made by the petitioner in his application under Section 39 of the Act. Later on on the 26th of June, 1954; the mother of the minor withdrew her application filed on the 8th of June, 1954, alleging that she had not made any such application. The parties, thereafter, took steps to have the witnesses summoned. The case ultimately was posted for hearing on the 28th of July, 1854, before the learned Second Additional District Judge, to whom it was transferred. On that date the petitioner filed certain documents and filed hazri of his witnesses. The case was taken up on that day and without taking any evidence in the case the learned Second Additional District Judge heard arguments of the parties on the question under consideration. The order sheet of that day clearly shows that the parties did not represent to the Court that they would not adduce evidence; rather the first paragraph of the order of that day regarding documents filed by the petitioner shows that the admissibility or otherwise of those documents would be considered when tendered into evidence. The second paragraph of the order then shows that the learned second Additional District Judge heard the lawyer of all the parties on the matter under consideration and fixed the 5th of August, 1954, for orders. On that he summarily dismissed the application after giving reasons for the same. Against that order the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.