Skip to content


Mandapaka Sudarsana Rao Vs. Varada Kameswara Rao Naidu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Family
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Mad795; 159Ind.Cas.661; (1935)69MLJ177
AppellantMandapaka Sudarsana Rao
RespondentVarada Kameswara Rao Naidu and anr.
Cases ReferredSamarendranath Mitra v. Pyareecharan Laha I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....the minor and the guardian-ad-litem is removed, ipso facto the two latter orders the guardian-ad-litem's appointment ceases to have any legality and thereafter he is disentitled to continue the proceedings in the suit as the guardian-ad-litem of the minor. the learned subordinate judge held that the appointment of the guardian-ad-litem was not ipso facto the subsequent appointment terminated and that consequently the minor was properly represented in the suit. upon this question there is no direct authority except a decision of the calcutta high court namely, samarendranath mitra v. pyareecharan laha i.l.r. (1934) cal. 1023. there it was held that a certificated guardian of minors who has been properly appointed guardian-ad-litem does not ipso facto cease to be the guardian-ad-litem.....
Judgment:

Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. The question arising in this appeal is whether, when a person has been validly appointed guardian-ad-litem of a minor defendant and subsequent to the date of the appointment of that person as guardian-ad-litem the natural guardian is appointed by another court in other proceedings as guardian of the person and property of the minor and the guardian-ad-litem is removed, ipso facto the two latter orders the guardian-ad-litem's appointment ceases to have any legality and thereafter he is disentitled to continue the proceedings in the suit as the guardian-ad-litem of the minor. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the appointment of the guardian-ad-litem was not ipso facto the subsequent appointment terminated and that consequently the minor was properly represented in the suit. Upon this question there is no direct authority except a decision of the Calcutta High Court namely, Samarendranath Mitra v. Pyareecharan Laha I.L.R. (1934) Cal. 1023. There it was held that a certificated guardian of minors who has been properly appointed guardian-ad-litem does not ipso facto cease to be the guardian-ad-litem because some other person has been appointed certificated guardian in his stead during the pendency of the suit. The facts in this case are exactly similar to those in that case and I agree with the reasons put forward by Costello, J., in support of that ruling. If a guardian-ad-litem has once been validly appointed, he continues to exercise his functions as guardian-ad-litem until he has ceased to be so, and he only ceases to be so by his retirement with the permission of the court or by his death or by his removal by an order of the court. Those are the only ways in which the guardian-ad-litem can cease to function as such during the pendency of a suit. None of those conditions are present here. The mere appointment of another guardian in other proceedings does not by itself divest the guardian-ad-litem of his position as guardian-ad-litem. He still continues to function. For these reasons, the order under appeal was right and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.


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