SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri G. Muthaiah vs All Concerned on 19 February, 2020





JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 47 of the

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 challenging the order dt.16.04.2019 passed in

G.W.O.P.No.563 of 2018 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,


2. The appellant herein is the maternal grand-father of a minor by name

Master Chapala Praneeth.

3. The appellant’s daughter is one Swapna and her husband is Late Sri C.

Ravi, and the boy Chapala Praneeth is their son.

4. Smt. Swapna died on 18.12.2017 and Sri C. Ravi died on 07.01.2010.

5. During her lifetime, Late Swapna had made a fixed deposit for Rs.9

lakhs in the erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad in

her name making her son Master Chapala Praneeth as nominee vide FDR

No.72088322964 FDSPS3319L.

6. Late Sri C. Ravi, during his lifetime, had purchased a plot No.42 situate

in Survey No.35/Part, admeasuring 200 Sq.Yds., at Hyderkote Village and

Gramapanchayat, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under a sale

deed bearing Document No.6205/2007, dt.22.06.2007.
::2:: cma_1147_2019

7. Likewise, Late Swapna had purchased plot No.38, admeasuring 200

Sq.Yds. in Survey No.224/A, situate at Babupet, hamlet of Masipet Village,

Yadagirigutta Mandal, Nalgonda District under a sale deed bearing Document

No.2629/2008, dt.27.03.2008 of S.R.O., Yadagirigutta.

8. The appellant filed G.W.O.P.No.563 of 2018 to appoint him as

Guardian of Master Chapala Praneeth and also to the properties inherited by

the said minor on account of the death of his parents Late Swapna and Sri C.

Ravi, and also the FDR and the plots referred to supra.

9. There was no contesting respondent.

10. The appellant examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7.

11. By order dt.16.04.2019, the Court below dismissed the said application

stating that nowhere in the O.P. pleadings or in his evidence the appellant

stated where the minor boy Master Chapala Praneeth was residing, who was

taking care of him after demise of the boy’s parents and the appellant did not

show any reason for withdrawal of the FDR amount. It also observed that the

appellant never stated that he was looking after the welfare of the minor child

after his daughter’s death and also did not state about the parents of his son-


12. Assailing the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed.

13. On 20.01.2020, this Court asked the counsel for petitioner to produce

the child and also proof that the child is being educated.

14. In response to the same, the appellant and the child Master Chapala

Praneeth were produced before us.

::3:: cma_1147_2019

15. We interviewed both of them individually.

16. The minor child stated that he was staying with the appellant who is his

maternal grand-father and the appellant was taking care of his needs and is

also educating him in a convent school.

17. The appellant also stated that he was taking care of the minor after the

death of his daughter and son-in-law. He stated that his son-in-laws’s parents

were also no more and he was the only person attending to the needs of the

minor. He stated that he was carrying on business in aquariums and that his

wife is also alive and taking care of the minor child.

18. Having regard to the said evidence, we are of the opinion that there is

nobody else who would attend to the needs of the minor child Master Chapala

Praneeth and that it is a fit case to appoint the appellant as the Guardian of not

only his son but also to the property inherited by the said child from his

deceased parents.

19. We accordingly allow the Guardian O.P. partly and permit the appellant

to claim the fixed deposit made by his deceased-daughter Late Smt. Chapala

Swapna (with the minor as the nominee) and utilize it for the benefit of the

child. If any requirement is there to alienate the properties inherited by the

minor child from his deceased parents during the child’s minority, the

appellant is granted liberty to make appropriate application at that point of

time and seek permission to alienate the same.

20. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed with the

above directions. No order as to costs.

::4:: cma_1147_2019

21. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this Civil

Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.


Date: 19-02-2020

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation