1. The learned advocate for the respondents cannot support the order of the lower Court in so far as it appointed respondent 1 to be the guardian of the minor girl. There was no application to appoint a guardian for the girl and we agree with Mr. A.V. Narayanaswamy Ayyar, advocate for the appellant, that the learned District Judge's order was without jurisdiction in so far as the girl was concerned. As for the boy, it is clear from the circumstances of the case that the mother, respondent 1, is not a proper guardian. She is a Hindu widow who has now married a Christian. The boy should ordinarily be brought up as a Hindu like his father; a Christian household is no proper house for him: vide Skinner v. Orde (1870-72) 14 MIA 309.
2. The appeal is therefore allowed and the learned District Judge's order appointing the mother as personal guardian of the minors is set aside. We are asked by Mr. Somasundaram, advocate for the respondents, to send the case back for further inquiry but we see no necessity to do so. The appellant is the maternal uncle of the boy and the girl is already living in his house. He resides in Kanadukathan which is in British India. There is nothing established against him in point of character, motive or means. We think the appellant is a fit person to be the personal guardian of the boy and we appoint him accordingly. The respondents must pay the appellant's costs in both Courts.