Mary Joseph, J.

The order dated 20.10.2015 of the IIIrd Additional District Court, Kollam (for short 'the court') in O.P.(G&W) No.185/2013 is under challenge in this appeal.

2. O.P(G&W) No.185/2013 was filed by one Aghileswary S. as the petitioner before the court seeking for appointment of herself as the guardian of the person and the property of the ward viz., Bhagya and permission to utilise the income from the immovable property of the ward for her welfare. The court tried the case and the evidence on record consists of the uncontroverted testimony of the petitioner, as sworn to by her in the proof affidavit filed and the documentary evidence appended along with it as Exts.P1 to P4. On appreciation of the oral and the documentary evidence on record and after hearing the counsel representing the petitioner, the court allowed the original petition on 20.10.2015 in petitioner's favour on the following terms:-

"(i) Declaring that the petitioner is the guardian to the person and property of the minor Bhagya aged 2 years, on the date of petition and allowed the custody of minor till attaining majority.

(ii) The petitioner is allowed to take possession of A and B schedule property, generate income as a trustee and utilise its income for the welfare of the minor.

(iii) The petitioner is directed to file accounts and status of the minor every three months.

(iv) The Secretary, Yeroor Grama Panchayath is directed to intimate any information received in the Panchayath within 05.08.2028 if any, u/s 8 to 13 of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 relating to the petitioner before this court.

(v) The Office is directed to serve a copy of this order to the Secretary, Yeroor Grama Panchayath through registered post with A/D card.

3. The respondent is aggrieved by the order and therefore, interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction was sought.

4. Sri. Manu Ramachandran, the counsel for the appellant and Sri. G. Ajayakumar, the counsel for the respondent were heard on their rival contentions.

5. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the order under challenge in this appeal was passed by the court below on an improper appreciation of the law, the facts and the evidence of this case. According to him, though the appellant had preferred a counter claim in the original petition, the court below did not consider the same. The court below failed to frame issues based on that, relevant for adjudication in the original petition. According to him, the ward was under the care and protection of the appellant and family since her early childhood and therefore, she has become adapted to the congenial circumstances in his house. It is contended that the ward, never, was under the care and protection of the respondent and the non-acquaintance of the latter with any of the particulars of the ward, more specifically her date of birth, fortifies such a contention. According to him, had the court below appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, the impugned order ought not to have been passed. According to him, the mother of the ward from her deathbed had entrusted the ward to him and ever since then he was keeping her custody in conditions favourable to her. He had gone to the extent of interrupting the attempt of the father of the ward to dispose of the property belonging to her by instituting O.S.No.311/2012 solely out of his concern for her and to protect her interests. The counsel also attempted to apprise the court of the fact that the original petition seeking appointment as guardian was filed by the respondent only after the death of the father of the ward and it can only be considered as a measure aimed at getting control over the property that has devolved upon the ward, after the death of her father.

6. Raising the contentions as above, the counsel pleaded that the court below has gone patently wrong in passing the order under challenge, in appointing the respondent as the guardian