MT. SHANTABAI Vs. GUNWANT RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS in most cases of the appointment of a guardian for the property of a minor, the matter for decision has been regarded all through as the conflict between the "claims" of various persons to that appointment. In such a case the Court has to decide first whether the appointment of a guardian is necessary and, having decided that it is, it has to select from among those who are willing to act the person who is most likely to manage the property best, and the decision of both points depends solely as is laid down in Sections 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, on what is for the minor's welfare.

(2.) SECTION 17 mentions certain matters to be considered in deciding what is for the minor's welfare. They certainly are the chief matters for consideration in that connexion, as they would be even if they were not mentioned in the Act, though there are often others. But they are all subsidiary matters on which the decision of the main matter, the welfare of the minor, depends. Nearness of kin, for instance, comes into consideration only because a person nearly related to the minor is likely to look after his interests better and more keenly than a more distant relative.

(3.) IN appointing Gunwant Rao the guardian in the present case the learned District Judge does give some reasons of his own for considering him the best person to appoint, which he undoubtedly is. He was, however, considerably influenced by the agreement to his appointment between all the minor's relatives except one, who included some of the "claimants," and he certainly did not regard their joint application as merely an indication of Gunwant Rao being the best person to appoint, but as some sort of an agreement between rival parties which to a certain extent he was bound to accept. That is clear from his acceptance of the scheme they put before him in that petition. That scheme includes details as to the amount of allowances to be paid and the limit of the cash to be kept in the hands of the guardian, which are solely for the Court to settle and may be altered by the Court on the following day. The arrangements made, however, which are expressly stated to be temporary, seem unobjectionable. If they are found to be unsound in working they can be altered at any time; this of course could be done if they had been stated to be permanent.