JUDGMENT
Govinda Menon, J.
1. This Is an appeal under Section 47, Guardians & Wards Act, against the order of the learned Dist. J. of Rajahmundry appointing the applt. herein guardian of his minor brother & directing the delivery of possession of the family properties to him on certain Conditions imposed upon by the learned Dist. J. The order was that it was only on the fulfilment of those conditions by the petnr. 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 appln. for the appointment of a property guardian for the petnr. & his
minor brother on the ground that both of them were minors & that a guardian should be appointed, because the joint family consisted only of these two minors & there was no adult major member at all. Accordingly, the resp. to this appeal Mr. Buchi Venkayya Pantulu, a legal practitioner was appointed as guardian & he managed the estate of the petnr & his minor brother. The petnr. became a major on 15-10-1946 & thereafter applied for recovery of possession of joint family properties under Section 39(a) & Section 41(2)(e) & Clause (3). Guardians & 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 Ct. has power under the Guardians & Wards Act to appoint a guardian in case there are no adult male members. At p. 299 of Mayne’s Hindu Law (Edn. 10), the learned author states as follows :
“When all the coparceners of a Mitakshara Joint family are minors, the Ct. can appoint a guardian of the property of the minors, though to such a case as soon as the eldest member of the family attains majority, the guardianship is ‘ipso facto’ determined as regards all the members.”
‘Bindaji v. Mathurabai’, 30 Bom 152: (7 Bom L R 809) ; Ramachandra v. Krishnarao’, 33 Bom 259 : (10 Bom L R 279); ‘Shaminath Sahi v. Laljiehaube’, 35 All 150 : (18 IC 251); ‘Jagannath Prasad v. Chunilal’, AIR (20) 1933 All 180 : (143 IC 706); ‘Chandrapal v. Sarabjit’, 11 Luck 67: (A I R (22) 1935 Oudh 334) are cited in support of this views. To the same effect are the statements of law in Mullah’s Hindu Law p. 589, Section 519. It is stated there that if all the sons are minors, the Ct. may appoint a guardian for the whole of the joint property until one of them attains majority & the authority cited is ‘Bindaji v. Mathurabai’, 30 Bom 152 : (7 Bom L R 809) & ‘Kajikar Lakshmi T. Maru-Devi’, 32 Mad. 139:’ (1 IC 999). These decisions were considered & followed by this Ct. by Ramesam & Jackson JJ. in ‘C. M. A. No. 268 of 1928 where the learned Judges went further & said that if in addition to the minors there is an adult member. who on account of unsoundness of mind in incapable of managing the property, then a property guardian can be appointed for the minor’s share. It is now well settled that a guardian cannot be appointed for the property of the minor members of a Joint family. ‘Sham Kuar v. Mohanunda Sahoy’, 19 Cal 301; ‘Virupakshappa v. Nilgangava’, 19 Bom 309 (F B) & the. decision of the P. C. to ‘Gharibulla v. Khalak Singh’, 25 All 407 : (30 I A 165 PC) authoritatively lay down the above proposition. Therefore the appointment of guardian was justified; but when once one of the minors becomes a major, he is ‘ipso facto’ entitled to the resumption of the entire property in his favour & he could act as the natural guardian of the minor not as the certificated guardian. That proposition is well settled by the statement of the law in Mayne’s Hindu Law & the cases which hare been quoted thereunder.
3. Such being the case, the learned Dist. J. was wrong in directing the petnr. to furnish security before he recovered possession of the Joint family properties. Probably the attention of the learned Judge was not specifically invited to the position of law, which is by this time very well settled. In these circumstances, the order of the lower Ct being unsustainable cannot be maintained & is therefore set aside. The appeal is allowed & the applt. is entitled to get possession of the entire properties of the joint family without any conditions being attached whatever. As the resp. did not appear & as he himself is a legal practitioner.
who has not objected to the surrender of possession
of the property, we direct that the applt. do pay his costs in Ct.