PURNA RAM Vs. HANUMANA RAM AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition filed under Section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 6.1.03 passed by the District Judge, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Misc. Application NO.45/82, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 10 read with Section 41(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

(2.) IN the instant case it appears that the petitioner -applicant was the maternal grandfather of minor Harphul Singh. Since the father and mother of the said minor Harphul Singh had expired, the dispute with regard to the appointment of guardianship had arisen and therefore the proceedings being Application No. 45/82 under Section 10 of the said Act was filed before the court below. However, ultimately in the SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 63/86, this court vide the order dated 14.9.87 had directed that the custody of the minor shall remain with the maternal grandmother Smt. Jinku, and that the maternal grandfather and the paternal grandfather both will have the visiting rights. It further appears that subsequently the said minor Harphul Singh also died on 10.1.02 and hence the present petitioner submitted an application before the trial court for handing over the custody of the properties of the said Harphul Singh. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ravi Jangir for the petitioner that the petitioner being the maternal grandfather was entitled to get the custody of the properties belonging to the Harphul Singh as Harphul Singh had executed a Will on 13.11.01 in favour of the petitioner. According to him, the trial court had not appreciated the evidence in right perspective and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.