The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of expeditious disposal of guardianship matters and the need for adherence to time schedules and effective supervising control by the High Courts.

Heard both sides.

2. The Original Petition was filed by the petitioner under Sections 3, 7, 10 and 29 of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking for the custody of minor children Arunkumar and Kumari.

.3. Notice was ordered on this application as early as 112. 2000. At the time of the filing of the Original Petition, the minor boy Arunkumar (born on 23.08.1988) was about 10 years old and minor girl Kumari (born on 11.05.1992) was about six years old. Both the children were born to Mr.G.Daniel and Mrs.Mariam Daniel. The mother of the minor children, Mariam Daniel died on 25.06.1993. Their father Mr.G.Daniel, who was employed in the Southern railway as a Fitter died on 12.09.1997. The petitioner and his wife Moshamma were taking care of the two children since then.

4. It is claimed that the petitioners paternal aunt G.Singamma had three children and the second child of hers was the father of the minor children. In fact, the late G.Daniel and the petitioner were cousins on the fathers side. The respondents were brothers of the father of minor children. The second respondent is unmarried. The grand parents of the minor children also passed away on 12.02.1975 and 15.06.1975 respectively. The other surviving legal heirs were one maternal grand aunt, Pitchamma, the petitioner as well as the respondents.

5. The two children right from the death of their mother were under the custody of the petitioner. At the relevant time of filing of the Original Petition, the minor boy was studying in III standard and the minor girl was studying in I standard. The children were taken care of by the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner was a retired Government Employee and is drawing pension.

6. It was stated that the terminal benefits that were due to the death of G.Daniel, (a sum of Rs.2,14,951/-) was deposited on a long term Fixed Deposit on equal share in the respective names of the minors. The children were entitled to withdraw it after they attain their majority. It was also claimed that the first respondent was married and was having two children and the second respondent was unmarried and also an alcoholic. Therefore, the custody of the minor children for their person and properties were sought for by the petitioner in this OP.

.7. On behalf of the respondents, a common counter statement was filed dated 010. 2002. In the common counter statement, the facts relating to the death of the parents of the minor children were not disputed. It was alleged that the petitioner was having an eye on the terminal benefits available to the death of the father of the minor children and hence he has chosen to file the present Original Petition. It was further alleged that the petitioner was a mischievous person and also a local Dhadha. He was 67 years old and cannot take care of the children. The petitioner had not disclosed the names of other near relatives. The allegation that the petitioner and his wife were bringing up the children after the demise of their parents was also denied. While the first respondent was employed in a private concern, the second respondent was an Advocate Clerk. The only motive of the petitioner was to grab the amount due to the children.

8. Evidence of the parties were recorded by this Court on different dates starting from December 2002 to February 2005. On the side of the petitioner, three witnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses namely R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined. Even though evidence was recorded as early as in February 2005, but for reasons best known, the matter was not posted for final disposal. It was only when a memo was filed by the petitioner dated 01.07.2009 stating that the minor boy Arunkumar was 21 years old and the minor girl Kumari was 17 ½ years old, the main O.P itself was was directed to be listed before this Court.

9. Thereafter, applications were filed in A.Nos.2974 and 2976 of 2009. In A.No.2974 of 2009, a direction was sought for to