- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 4?, Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') against the order of the learned District Judge, Sriganganagar dated April 21, 1989 by which he has appointed the petitioner- respondent Ram Karan as the guardian of the minor Rajesh Kumar in respect of his person and property. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON October 14, 1982, the petitioner Ram Karan filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act with the allegations, in short, that he is the maternal grand-father (nana) of Rajesh Kumar, 11 years old, son of the non-petitioner Jeet Ram who had murdered his wife and two daughters, Rajesh Kumar was not with him otherwise he would have also been murdered, Rajesh Kumar is the KHATEDAR of about ten bighas of land situated in the village Padampur, it is being cultivated by the non-petitioner Jeet Ram and he is not paying anything to the minor, the minor is being brought up and educated carefully by him and it would be in his interest if he is appointed as his guardian reply that Rajesh Kumar is his son, he is minor, he is living with his maternal grandfather and his wife and two daughters had died five years ago. The remaining allegations of the petition have been denied. It has further been averred that his wife gave poision to his two daughters, thereafter, she also took poison and, as a result thereof, all the three died. He has also averred that a case under Section 302, I. P. C. was filed against him, he was acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, he permitted the petitioner to take the minor Rajesh Kumar and, thereafter, he did not even permit him to meet his son. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the trial Court allowed the application by its order under appeal. At the commencement of the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that Rajesh Kumar is now a major as his date of birth is February 3, 1970 according to the certificate issued by the Registrar, Death & Birth Registration, Sriganganagar which has been filed by him along with an application under O. XCI Rule 27, C. P. C. In reply, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the said certificate is of no value as the necessary entry under the Death & Birth Registration Act, 1886 was made on 13. 6. 89, after about two months of the impugned order. He further contends that the statement of Rajesh Kumar was recorded by this court on February 14, 1990 wherein he has categorically stated that his date of birth according to the school record is August 9, 1972. He also contends that the appellant admitted in his statement that he got his son Rajesh Kumar admitted in a school and despite this no record of the school showing his date of birth was produced by him during the trial. The contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent have great force. Admittedly, no document was filed by the appellant during the trial regarding the date of birth or age of Rajesh Kumar. The said certificate filed along with the application under O. XCI Rule 27, Cr. P. C. is of no value. Admittedly, the registration was effected on 13. 6. 1989 and on the same day the certificate was issued. It is admitted in this application that this entry was got made and the certificate obtained by the appellant himself. Thus there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal has become infructuous as the minor Rajesh Kumar has attained the age of majority. The learned counsel for the appellant could not successfully challenge the impugned order on merits. The learned District Judge has rightly appointed the petitioner respondent Ram Karan as the guardian of the minor Rajesh Kumar. Admittedly, he is maternal grand father (nana) of the minor Rajesh Kumar. It is clear from the statement of Rajesh Kumar that he is living with his nana for the last ten years. He appeared in person before this Court on February 14, 1990. On that day also, he categorically stated that he does not want to live with his father Jeet Ram appellant. He disclosed in his statement that his father murdered his mother and two sisters. If the petitioner respondent Ram Karan would not have been properly looking after his grand son Rajesh Kumar, he would not have come in Xth class. It is admitted by the appellant in his statement dated 17. 3. 1989 that he never went to village Fatuhi to see his son Rajesh Kumar or gifted anything. Under these facts and circumstances, there is no force in the appeal.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 500/ -. .;