HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1147 of 2019
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
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.
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.
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
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.
21. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, in this Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal, shall stand closed.
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J