Skip to content


Abadi Begam Vs. Alim-ullah Khan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1907)ILR29All10
AppellantAbadi Begam
RespondentAlim-ullah Khan
Excerpt:
act no. viii of 1890 (guardians and wards act), section 10 - guardian and minor--paternal uncle or mother--muhammadan law. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are..........apparently the appellant and his brother, who holds a decree against the father of the minors, are working together. we think, therefore, the learned judge was fully justified in appointing the mother as guardian of the persons and property of the minors. we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.
Judgment:

Banerji and Aikman, JJ.

1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act from an order of the District Judge appointing the respondent, the mother of three minors of tender years, guardian of their persons and property. The appellant is a paternal uncle of the minors, and claims to have a preferential right to be appointed their guardian. He has no right to be appointed guardian of the persons of the minors, two of whom are girls, and the third is a boy of six. As regards the guardianship of the property, the paternal uncle has no legal right under the Muhammadan law to the guardianship of the property of the minors any more than the mother--see Shaikh Alimodeed Moallem v. Musammat Syfoora Bibee (1866) 6 W.R., M.R., 125 and Tagore Law Lectures, 1873, p. 479. The sole question therefore to be considered is whether it would be for the welfare of the minors to appoint the appellant, their uncle, as guardian of their property rather than their mother. Having regard to the circumstances disclosed in the judgment of the District Judge, it is clear that the appointment of the appellant to the guardianship of the property would not be advisable. Apparently the appellant and his brother, who holds a decree against the father of the minors, are working together. We think, therefore, the learned Judge was fully justified in appointing the mother as guardian of the persons and property of the minors. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //