Skip to content


Bhagwan Das Vs. Mangalia - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1922All540; (1923)ILR45All196; 71Ind.Cas.416
AppellantBhagwan Das
RespondentMangalia
Excerpt:
guardian - successive applications for removal on same facts, not entertainable--mother appointed guardian--residence of second husband of mother in same house with minor, whether ground for removal. - .....ganga prasad. in the year 1920 bhagwan das, father-in-law of the minor, applied for the removal of musammat mangalia from the guardianship both of the person and of the property, making a number of allegations against her, on this application, it so happened that two successive orders were passed by officers holding the district judgeship of cawnpore, and one of these orders came before this court, in appeal, in the year 1921. as to the effect of these orders, we entertain no doubt. musammat mangalia was removed from the guardianship of the property of the minor and bhagwan das was appointed in her place. the court refused to remove her from the guardianship of the person of the minor. on the 16th of february, 1922, bhagwan das presented to the district judge the application out of which.....
Judgment:

Piggott and Walsh, JJ.

1. In the year 1915 Musammat Mangalia was appointed guardian of the person and property of her minor son, Ganga Prasad. In the year 1920 Bhagwan Das, father-in-law of the minor, applied for the removal of Musammat Mangalia from the guardianship both of the person and of the property, making a number of allegations against her, On this application, it so happened that two successive orders were passed by officers holding the District Judgeship of Cawnpore, and one of these orders came before this Court, in appeal, in the year 1921. As to the effect of these orders, we entertain no doubt. Musammat Mangalia was removed from the guardianship of the property of the minor and Bhagwan Das was appointed in her place. The court refused to remove her from the guardianship of the person of the minor. On the 16th of February, 1922, Bhagwan Das presented to the District Judge the application out of which this appeal arises. It is curiously drafted and seems to ignore the result of the previous litigation. There is also a passage in it which leaves one in doubt whether Bhagwan Das himself desired to resign the office of guardianship of the property of the minor to which he had been appointed. The application, however, has not been so interpreted by the District Judge, arid we have not been asked to reconsider the view which he took of it in respect of this matter. The point, however, is this, that Bhagwan Das seeks to treat the question of the guardianship of the person of the minor as still open, and asks the Court to go into the question of the relative claims of himself and of Musammat Mangalia, as if there were at present no guardian of the person of the minor in existence. The District Judge has rightly held that the effect of the orders previously passed was to confirm Musammat Mangalia in the position of guardian of the person of the minor. The question, therefore, is whether, in this fresh application of the 16th of February, 1922, Bhagwan Das has shown cause for her removal from the guardianship of the person. In the main, this application puts forward the same facts which were considered by the District Judge of Cawnpore in the year 1.921. There is one fresh allegation, as to the residence of Musammat Mangalia's second husband in the house which Musammat Mangalia continues to occupy as guardian of her minor son. This would not in itself be a cause for her removal. It has been contended before us that orders in a guardianship matter cannot have the effect in law of res judicata. It is not a question, however, of the operation of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question is whether the duly appointed guardian of the person of a minor is to be called upon to resist successive applications for his or her removal, based upon the same set of facts each time. In our opinion, the District Judge was right in dismissing the application of Bhagwan Das on the ground on which he has substantially proceeded, namely, that Musammat Mangalia was the lawfully appointed guardian of the person of the minor and that no fresh cause was now being shown for her removal from that office, over and above the facts which had been put forward before and duly considered by the District fudge in the year 1921. On these grounds we dismiss this appeal with costs.


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