Skip to content


Raghunandan Singh Vs. Subhag Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1914)ILR36All282
AppellantRaghunandan Singh
RespondentSubhag Singh
Excerpt:
act no. viii of 1890 (guardians and wards act), chapter ii - appointment of guardian--procedure--evidence--admissibility of qanungo's report as to fitness of applicant. - - we think that this contention is well-founded and we therefore, set aside the order of the learned judge under appeal and direct him to dispose of the applications and objections of the three persons named above, according to law......and babu subhag singh. har shankar singh described himself as the paternal uncle of the minor. the learned judge as appears from the serial order, dated the 21st of february, 1913, asked the collector of the district whether he was inclined to take the property of the minor under the management of the court of wards, and if not, to say which one of the three persons, viz. raghunandan singh, hat shankar singh and subhag singh was the fittest person for appointment as guardian of the person and property of the minor. a report was presumably called for by the collector from the girdawar qanungo, who reported in favour of raghunandan singh. on the receipt of that report and without taking any further evidence in the case, the learned judge appointed raghunandan singh as guardian and rejected.....
Judgment:

Muhammad Rafiq and Piggott, JJ.

1. This is an appeal under Act VIII of 1890 from an order passed by the learned District Judge of Ghazipur, appointing one Raghunandan Singh guardian of the person and property of his minor son-in-law, named Padam Deo Narain Singh. It appears that in addition to Raghunandan Singh there were two other persons who moved the lower court for their appointment, viz. Har Shankar Singh and Babu Subhag Singh. Har Shankar Singh described himself as the paternal uncle of the minor. The learned Judge as appears from the serial order, dated the 21st of February, 1913, asked the Collector of the district whether he was inclined to take the property of the minor under the management of the Court of Wards, and if not, to say which one of the three persons, viz. Raghunandan Singh, Hat Shankar Singh and Subhag Singh was the fittest person for appointment as guardian of the person and property of the minor. A report was presumably called for by the Collector from the girdawar qanungo, who reported in favour of Raghunandan Singh. On the receipt of that report and without taking any further evidence in the case, the learned Judge appointed Raghunandan Singh as guardian and rejected the prayers of the other two persons. Subhag Singh has come up in appeal to this Court. He contends that the report of the qanungo cannot be treated in law as evidence in the ease and that the learned Judge should have called upon the different claimants to give evidence and should have decided on that evidence. We think that this contention is well-founded and we therefore, set aside the order of the learned Judge under appeal and direct him to dispose of the applications and objections of the three persons named above, according to law. The costs of this appeal shall abide the event.


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