M.N. Venkatasan Chetty vs K. Ethirajammah

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.

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.

We are not prepared to say that Wallis, J., was wrong in the way he exercised his discretion in this case.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.