ALWAR AMMAL Vs. NARAYANA NAICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order under appeal was one appointing the respondent guardian of the properties of two minors and it is attacked here by the mother of the minors who in fact applied for her own appointment as guardian in the lower Court.

(2.) The circumstances can be stated shortly. The father of the minors died in 1917, leaving considerable property. Which descended, it is not disputed, to the minors. His adoptive father's brother-in-law, Venkataswani Naick, died on the 3 of April 1918, he and the father had been intimate and had been living together, and Venkata swami Naick left a Will by which he gave the property to the two minors with a condition for defeasance in case of the death of both of them before majority in favour of the respondent. The respondent was also appointed executor of the Will and to the exact scope of that appointment we shall return. After the death of the father in December 1917 he and the petitioner (the widow), apparently were on good terms for some time, the widow even executing a power-of-attorney in his favour. Later on, after the death of Venkataswami Naick disputes arose and the petitioner repudiated the power-of-attorney. Not much has been said regarding that incident here and it does not seem to us necessary that we should decide whether, as the lower Court has held, the charges made by the petitioner against the respondent in this connection are unfounded.

(3.) As stated, disputes arose after April 1948, and it is possibly the origin of these disputes that the brother of the respondent, Rangaswami Naick, then propounded a gift-deed from Venkataswami Naick to him of certain properties. The gift-deed is in his name, but the body of the document the right of the respondent and another brother to the enjoyment of the properties dealt with is provided for. Rangaswami Naick applied for registration of this document and was unsuccessful both before the Sub-Registrar and the District Registrar and a suit to enforce the registration has since been brought. It has further to be noted that the parties are not agreed as to the properties, which are comprised in the estate of the minor's father, and as to the ownership or identity of the properties included in the gift deed in favour of Rangaswami Naick.