NAGAVA GURLINGAYA NANDI Vs. COLLECTOR OF BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. It appears that one Nagava Gurlingaya Nandi made an application under Act VIII of 1890 to be appointed a guardian of the person of her three minor children, one son Shivlingaya, and two daughters Gangava and Shivlingaya. Notices of this application were issued, but apparently no notice of it was given to the Collector at the time. On January 5, 1922, the learned District Judge made an order appointing her guardian of the person of the minor.

(2.) Thereafter, on February 11, 1922, the Collector wrote to the District Judge a letter bringing to his notice certain facts and praying for a cancellation of the order of January 5. It appears from that letter that Dundaya had applied under Section 9 of the Court of Wards Act I of 1905 that the estate should be taken charge of by the Court of Wards. The Notification in the Government Gazette of 1920, Part I, p. 690, shows that Dundaya, the grand-father of these minor children, and Durlingaya the father of these children were declared landholders for the purposes of the Bombay Court of Wards Act under the powers conferred upon Government by Clause (b)(ii) of Section 2 of that Act on account of the extent and value of their interest in land.

(3.) It also appears from the Notification published in the Bombay Government Gazette of 1920, Part I, p. 2680, that the Court of Wards assumed superintendence of the property of Dundaya Shivlingaya Nandi, and that the assumption of the superintendence of the said property wan sanctioned by His Excellency the Governor in Council under Secs.4 and 9 of the Act.