S.R.Bhargava - (1.) THIS appeal, under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, has arisen from dispute between maternal and paternal grand fathers of minor Nikhil Kumar. The lower court has preferred the grand father of minor Nikhil Kumar. The lower court has paternal grand father and has appointed him guardian of the minor. Maternal grand father has, therefore, preferred this appeal. ,
(2.) FACTS are that Vineeta daughter of appellant Dhaninder Kumar, resident of Saharanpur in U.P., was married with Rakesh Kumar, youngest son of respondent Deep Chand, resident of Jagadhari. previously district Ambala, now an independent district in Haryana, on 20th February, 1984. The wedlock was blessed with son Nikhil Kumar who was born on 29th December, 1984 Poor child lost his father Rakesh Kumar on 26th March, 1985. After a short time of the death of Rakesh Kumar Vineeta along with her child in lap went to her father's house and started living there. The child become poorer by losing his mother on 27th February, 1986. It is not disputed that after the death of his mother the child was retained by his maternal grand father Dhaninder Kumar. The maternal grand father moved application dated 1st August, 1986 in the court of District Judge, Saharanpur for being appointed guardian of minor Nikhil Kumar in prescribed form. In column No 4 of his application he showed only bis son Arvind Kumar as near relation of the minor He showed cause of the application and asserted that after . the death of Rakesh Kumar his parents ill-treated Vineeta They were cruel to her and threatened her Then there was arbitration and according to award of the arbitrators after 15 to 20 days of the death of Rakesh Kumar Vineeta along with her son went to her father's house. After the death of Vineeta Dhaninder Kumar, applicant, has been looking after the minor. In the list of property of the minor Dhaninder Kumar showed insurance policy on the life of Rakesh Kumar of Rs. 20,000/- and a Bank Account of Vineeta in Punjab National Bank having a balance of Rs. 600/-. Dhaninder Kumar wanted to be guardian of both person and property of the minor. After public notice the paternal grand father of the minor, namely, Deep Chand came to Saharanpur and filed objections. He criticised the application lor appointment of guardian on ground of suppression of near relations and property of the minor. He denied the allegations of the maternal grand father that parents of Rakesh Kumar were cruel to Vineeta. He further dented all the allegations of the maternal grand father and contended that soon after the death of Rakesh Kumar Dhaninder Kumar started instigating Vinreta against her in-laws and took Vineeta. her child and all her valuables. Vineeta died in mysterious circumstances. Even her father-in-law was no informed about her death. It was contended in the objections that Dhaninder Kumar wants to be guardian of the person and property of the minor only for his personal gain. It was further disclosed in the objections that the maternal grand father does not have 1 is wife whereas the paternal grand father has his wife. In the objections means of maternal grand father were attacked as inadequate. It was asserted by the paternal grand father that he wants to keep his grand son in the joint family consisting of himself, his two elder sons and their male children so that the minor may be benefited from love and affection of all his relations in the paternal side. With the objections affidavit dated 6th May, 1987 was filed by Deep Chand.
(3.) THEN Dhaninder Kumar filed counter affidavit and Deep Chand filed rejoinder affidavit. In counter affidavit Dhaninder Kumar brought out the story that he can very well look after the minor and has means. According to him in his life time Rakesh Kumar separated from his father He remained ill for long time and all the money and valuables were consumed in his treatment. He further asserted that the inlaws of Vineeta were very harsh to her. They never bothered about her or the minor. Tin re was rejoinder affidavit by Deep Chand ft may be noted that both paternal grand father and maternal grand father filed two affidavits each. They filed some documentary evidence also. THEN the parties did not adduce any evidence On 27th November. 1987 it was recorded in the order sheet of the lower court that the parties did not want to adduce any further evidence. Hence, the learned lower court closed evidence and fixed the case for hearing. After hearing the counsel of the parties the same day the learned lower court preferred the paternal grand father and appointed him as guardian of person and property of the minor One of the conditions imposed was that the paternal grand-father should give immoveable property to the minor. Paternal grand father complied with this condition by getting a suit filed on behalf of the minor regarding immoveable property and conceded his claim. A decree for declaration was, therefore, framed in favour of the minor.;