SRI RAJAH YENUMULA SURYANARAYANAMURTHY DORA GARU Vs. SRI CHITRAPU BUCHI VENKAYYA PANTULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act against the order of the learned District Judge of Rajahmundry appointing the appellant herein guardian of his minor brother and directing the delivery of possession of the family properties to him on certain conditions imposed upon by the learned District Judge. The order was that it was only on the fulfilment of those conditions by the petitioner that he is entitled to recover possession of the properties, or to act as the guardian of his minor brother. The learned Judge held that as the elder brother has furnished security as ordered, he was to be appointed ¦ as guardian of the property of the minor on usual conditions. O. P. No. 92 of 1935 was an application for the appointment of a property guardian for the petitioner and his minor brother on the ground that both of them were minors and that a guardian should be appointed, because the joint family consisted only of these two minors and there was no adult major member at all. Accordingly, the respondent to this appeal Mr. Buchi Venkayya Pantulu, a legal practitioner, was appointed as guardian and he managed the estate of the petitioner and his minor brother. The petitioner became a major on the 15th October, 1945 and thereafter applied for recovery of possession of joint family properties under Section 39(a) and Section 41(2)(c) and Clause (3) of the Guardians and Wards Act. The learned Judge passed the order, which is the subject of appeal adverted to above.

(2.) IT is clearly established that where all the members of a joint family are minors, the Court has power under the Guardians and Wards Act to appoint a guardian in case there are no adult male members. At page 299 of Mayne's Hindu Law (10th Edition), the learned author states as follows: