J.M. Lal, J.
1. In this case Smt. Resham Wati respondent No. 2 who is the real sister of minor Suresh Chandra was appointed by the District Judge Hardoi as guardian of the person and property of this minor with the consent of the appellant who is minor's distant uncle and was himself a counter claimant in those proceedings. The District Judge passed his order in terms of this agreement and directed the minor to be delivered to the guardian who was also ordered to maintain and submit accounts regarding the income of the property of the minor.
2. The appellant subsequently changed his mind and he filed this appeal alleging that Smt. Resham Wati was not a suitable person for appointment of guardian of minor's person as she was the next presumptive heir In case the minor died.
3. Sri B. L. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of Madras High Court in M. Narasayya v. A. Venkatappa. (AIR 1923 Mad 359) in support of his contention that the presumptive heir to the property of a minor is not a suitable person to be appointed guardian of his person, as such a person stands to gain by the minor's death. That observation was made by the Madras High Court when that presumptive heir was a distant relation of the minor. It is not a rule of law which can be applied in every case otherwise the mother who is the next presumptive heir of a Hindu minor who is unmarried would be disqualified from being appointed as guardian of the Person of the minor and that would be very ludicrous of course.
4. In the case of distant relations this rule of prudence should be observed in judging the suitability of that person for such appointment. In the present case the respondent No. 2 being the real sister of the minor has her natural affection for the minor and she cannot be expected to be interested in his death simply because in such an eventuality she would inherit the property of the minor. Besides, in this case the appointment was made by the District Judge with the consent of the appellant himself. He cannot now be heard to go back from that consent and claim himself to be appointed as his guardian. 4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order for costs as nobody turned up on behalf of the respondents.