Appeal against an order under Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act appointing the grandmother as guardian of a minor. The court held that Section 47 lists appealable orders only for orders under specified sections, not Section 8, so no appeal lies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1656 OF 2024(GW)
BETWEEN:
V. YOGISH SON OF VENKATASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT ANUPANAHALLI HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. MANJU C M – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H V RAJA RAM - ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka
MASTER MANVITH AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS SON OF V YOGISH GRAND SON OF JYOTHI LAKSHMI SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND GRAND MOTHER SMT JYOTHILAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O ASHOKAM RESIDING AT NO 59 OM SHAKTHI NILAYA 10TH CROSS, LAKSHMIPURA MAIN ROAD BBMP WARD NO. 12 CHIKKABANAVARA POST ABBIGERE, BENGALURU 560090
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K T VENKATESHA ADVOCATE)
NC: 2024:KHC:18714-DB MFA No. 1656 of 2024
THIS MFA FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1(1) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 06.11.2023 PASSED IN G&WC.NO.4/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII-ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel Smt.C.M.Manju for the appellant is present before the Court physically and represents Sri H.V.Rajaram who is on record.
Smt.Kavitha M.A.(deceased). Guardianship Certificate was ordered to be issued in the name of Smt.Jyothilakshmi in respect of the minor child Master Manvith – who is the minor son of the respondent – V.Yogesh and Smt.Kavitha M.A.(deceased). The same is indicated in the operative portion of the order.
convince the Court in respect of Section 47 of the Act
which reads as under:
47. Orders appealable
An appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order made by a *Court
(a) under section 7, appointing or declaring or refusing to appoint or declare a guardian; or
(b)under section 9, sub-section (3), returning an application; or
(c)under section 25, making or refusing to make an order for the return of a ward to the custody of his guardian; or
(d)under section 26, refusing leave for the removal of a ward from the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or imposing conditions with respect thereto; or
(e)under section 28 or section 29, refusing permission to a guardian to do an act referred to in the section; or
NC: 2024:KHC:18714-DB MFA No. 1656 of 2024
(f)under section 32, defining, restricting or extending the powers of a guardian; or
(g)under section 39, removing a guardian; or
(h)under section 40, refusing to discharge a guardian; or
(i)under section 43, regulating the conduct or proceedings of a guardian or settling a matter in difference between joint guardians, or enforcing the order; or
(j)under section 44 or section 45, imposing a penalty.
initiated under Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable against the order passed by the Court below keeping in view Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Accordingly, the office note is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
DKB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal lies under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act against an order passed under Section 8 appointing a guardian.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Yogish
Master Manvith (minor, rep. by natural guardian and grandmother Smt. Jyothilakshmi)
K. Somashekar
Chillakur Sumalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
