GANGA PRASAD BHATTACHARYYA Vs. HARA KANTA CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals against certain orders passed by the District Judge of Pabna and Bogra in a proceeding under Act VIII of 1890 (the Guardians and Wards Act).

(2.) The facts of the case are these:--One Brojo Mohan died, leaving a widow named Bidhu Mukhi Debya, a son named Biseshwar Mohan Roy, and two daughters. On the death of the son, the widow, under permission given to her by her deceased husband, adopted a boy, named Monoranjan Chowdhry, the natural son of one Hara Kant a Chowdhry. The adoptive mother is also dead and now the dispute is between Hara Kanta Chowdhry, the natural father of the minor, on the one hand, and the two daughters of Brojo Mohan Roy and the 3 brothers of the widow on the other, as regards the guardianship of the person of the minor.

(3.) The natural father, Hara Kanta Chowdhry, was the first to apply, under Act VIII of 1890 ; upon which the two daughters of the late Brojo Mohan Roy and his widow's brothers objected. There were thus five objectors altogether ; and all of them objected to the appointment of the natural father as guardian of the person of the minor. It appears from the written objections filed in the case that four of them had no objection to the appointment of Sasi Bhusan Bhuttacharya himself, one of the objectors, as guardian of the person and property of the minor. It appears further that Brojo Mohan Roy had left a Will and a codicil and that Sasi Bhusan Bhuttacharya was appointed as executor under the terms of that Will. Since the institution of the present proceeding, Sasi Bhusan Bhuttacharya has obtained probate of the Will and codicil; and the probate has been filed with an application before us. On the 20 May 1909, a joint petition was made by Sasi Bhusan Bhuttacharya and Hara Kanta Chowdhry, the terms of which were that the matter in dispute had been arranged between them and that it had been agreed that Sasi Bhusan Bhuttacharya should be appointed guardian of the property of the minor and Hara Kanta Chowdhry guardian of the person of the minor. The learned District Judge passed an order on the same date in terms of the above petition and further directed that Sasi Bhusan should furnish security to the extent of Rs. 3,000. Sasi Bhusan Bhuttcharya appeals against this order of 20 May 1909 and contends that Hara Kanta Chowdhry should not have been appointed guardian of the person of the minor, and that the order for security should not have been made, and that in any case, the amount required as security was excessive. On the 26 May 1909, the learned District Judge passed an order that the head nuzir should check the accounts; and on the 29 of May ho passed certain order with regard to the allowance for the maintenance of the minor and sundry other matters for the personal comfort of the minor. Sasi Bhusan appeals against these orders also in his Appeal No. 413 of 1909.