Heard Sri Anand Rao, the counsel representing the appellant and Sri. Sivanand Kumar, the counsel representing the contesting respondents.

2. The unsuccessful petitioner, Boggavarapu Sriramam in IA.No.388 of 1998 in OP.No.412 of 1995 on the file of the Court of District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, had preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

3. The appellant herein, the petitioner moved an application, IA.No.388 of 1998 in OP.No.412 of 1995 on the file of the Court of District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, under Section 39 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 {hereinafter referred to for short 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience} to remove the third respondent from the guardianship of the property for the mental ill-person Maitreyudu and appoint him as property guardian.

4. The learned Judge on the strength of the evidence of PW.1 and RW.1 and also Exs.A1 to A6 came to the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner failed to make reasonable ground to remove the third respondent as property guardian of congenital idiot-Maityreyudu and accordingly dismissed the petition with costs of R3. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred.

5. The counsel representing appellant made elaborate submissions in relation to the provisions of the Act and also certain provisions of the Mental Health Act, 1987 and would submit that the learned Judge recorded erroneous findings and hence the impugned order to be interfered with.

6. The counsel representing the contesting respondents however would maintain that in none of the grounds for removal of the guardian or replacing of the guardian had been made out and hence the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever.

7. The appellant-petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application, IA.No.388 of 1998 in OP.No.413 of 1995 aforesaid, averred that on his application to appoint him as guardian for the person and property of the mentally ill-person-Maitreyudu the court appointed him as guardian for the person and third respondent as guardian for the property for the mentally ill- person Maitreyudu. It is stated that the third respondent is the bank employee residing at Hyderabad and the property of the mentally ill-person i.e., a portion in the big family house and the site appurtenant thereto is situated in Tapeswaram, which is far away from his residence and after appointment of third respondent as guardian for the property of mentally ill-person Maitreyudu on 13-8-1997, the third respondent has not aken any care to protect and preserve the property of mentally ill-person Maitreyudu. A portion of the family house got badly damaged in November 1996 cyclone. The third respondent-property guardian has not taken any care to get the house repaired. The house being a tiled one, there is imminent danger to it if repairs are not attended promptly. The third respondent property guardian has not done anything to collect rents from the tenants in occupation of a portion of the premises belonging to the mentally ill-person Maitreyudu. As the electricity charges were not paid in respect of the premises, the departmental officials took the meter away and no action was taken by the third respondent property guardian to restore the power supply. The third respondent committed default in payment of monthly maintenance amount ordered to be paid while the petition was pending enquiry. The third respondent also opposed the application filed by the petitioner for release of Rs.1500/- per month as granted by the court as per orders dated 13-8-1997. The third respondent also instigating the mentally ill-person Maitreyudu to revolt against the petitioner. The third respondent is unfit to continue as property guardian of mentally ill-person Maitreyudu. The petitioner is at liberty for modification of the order as observed by the High Court in CMA.No.1670 of 1997. Since the third respondent is not evincing any interest in looking af