KESHOBATI KUMARI Vs. SATYA NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by Rani Keshobati Kumari against an order, dated 18th November 1906, passed by the District Judge of the Sonthal Perganahs under Section 7 of Act VIII of 1890 (the Guardian and Wards Act) appointing the Deputy Commissioner of the Sonthal Perganahs to be the guardian of the person and property of the minor, Satya Narain Singh. The minor is the adopted son of the appellant.

(2.) On the 10 April 1893, Raja Udit Narayan Singh of Handwa in the Sonthal Perganahs died, leaving him surviving his widow, Rani Keshobati Kumari, the present appellant. On the 7 April 1896, three days before his death, Raja Udit Narayan executed a will by which he gave his widow pow to adopt three sons in succession. In the second clause of will there is a provision which has been translated as follows:--"But during the lifetime of the said Rani the mokurari istemrari rights and all moveable and immoveable properties and all household furniture &c., shall be entirely in her hands and under her management."

(3.) On the 8 March 1893, Rani Keshobati Kumari adopted Satya Narain Singh as her son, and on the same date the natural father of Satya Narain executed a deed recognising the right of the Rani to retain management of the property during her lifetime. On the 22nd December 1905, Mohar Singh, a relative of the deceased Raja, filed a petition before the District Judge of the Sonthal Perganahs, praying that a guardian might be appointed for the minor, Satya Narain Singh, on the ground that the Rani had been wasting and mismanaging the property; and on the same date the District Judge passed an order appointing Mr. Macgregor Receiver pendente lite of the property then under management of the Rani, and issued an injunction restraining the Rani and certain other persons from interfering with the collections of the Handwa estate until final orders were passed on the application for the appointment of a guardian to the minor. Satya Narain Singh. The Rani filed her objection to the application on the 23 February 1906. In that she claimed to be entitled under the will of her late husband to the management of the estate during her lifetime. On the 4 July 1906, the District Judge dismissed the application for the appointment of a guardian, and directed that the estate should be made over to Rani Keshobati Kumari. Mohar Singh appealed to the High Court, and on the 12 September 1906 a Bench of this Court held that it was necessary to remand the case to the District Judge in order that he might appoint a guardian for the minor Satya Narain Singh. The Judges held that the District Judge was right in directing the release of the estate and its being made over to the Rani, but that he was wrong in not proceeding to appoint a guardian for the minor, as the Rani was not a guardian appointed by the Court, and the application was for the appointment and not for the removal of a guardian. They whether held that, in order to determine the question raised in that they holding whether the Rani was entitled under the will of the Raja to remain in possession of the estate and what were the rights of the minor, it was necessary in the interests of the minor that a guardian should be appointed at once. They also directed the District Judge to call on Mohar Singh to name a person who was competent and willing to accept the position of guardian and then to decide who should be appointed.