Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.

Madras High Court
M.N. Venkatasan Chetty vs K. Ethirajammah on 11 November, 1908
Equivalent citations: 4 Ind Cas 1117 a
Bench: A White, Miller


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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.174 seconds.