Skip to content


M.N. Venkatasan Chetty Vs. K. Ethirajammah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.1117a
AppellantM.N. Venkatasan Chetty
RespondentK. Ethirajammah
Excerpt:
guardians and words act (ix of 1890) - appointment of one of the relations as guardian--petition of another relation who was referred to a separate petition--res judicata--hindu law--guardianship--preference of paternal grand-uncle to father's mother--discretion: - .....the question of the claim of k. ethirajamah, who is the mother of the father of the minor, to be appointed guardian of the person of the minor is not res judicata by reason of boddam, j.'s order of february 18th 1908. we see no reason for not accepting the statement of. mr. balakrisna chetty in his affidavit dated july 27th 1908, that, boddam, j., referred ethirajamah to a fresh petition for the guardian of the person of the minor.2. mr. rangachariar has contended that under the hindu law varadarajulu naidoo who is willing to be appointed guardian of the person and who is a paternal grand-uncle of the minor is entitled to be appointed in priority to ethirajamah. assuming that the paternal grand-uncle has a preference over the father's mother, this is not the only consideration by which.....
Judgment:

1. We agree with Wallis J., that the question of the claim of K. Ethirajamah, who is the mother of the father of the minor, to be appointed guardian of the person of the minor is not res judicata by reason of Boddam, J.'s order of February 18th 1908. We see no reason for not accepting the statement of. Mr. Balakrisna Chetty in his affidavit dated July 27th 1908, that, Boddam, J., referred Ethirajamah to a fresh petition for the guardian of the person of the minor.

2. Mr. Rangachariar has contended that under the Hindu Law Varadarajulu Naidoo who is willing to be appointed guardian of the person and who is a paternal grand-uncle of the minor is entitled to be appointed in priority to Ethirajamah. Assuming that the paternal grand-uncle has a preference over the father's mother, this is not the only consideration by which the Court has to be guided in considering the question of the appointment of a guardian. The Court has a discretion to appoint a person other than the party, who, on the ground of relationship, may have a prior claim.

3. We are not prepared to say that Wallis, J., was wrong in the way he exercised his discretion in this case.

4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


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