( 1 ) THE present civil appeal under Section 10 of the Family courts Act at the instance of the appellant Susila Naik challenges the order dated 13-3-1996 made by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Guardianship Case No. 51 of 1992.

( 2 ) BY the impugned order guardianship certificate has been directed to be issued appointing opposite party No. 5 Binapani Patel as guardian of the minor subject to execution of a bond without surety for Rs. 50,000. 00 within a month of the order. The earlier order of the Family Court dated 15-11-1993 appointing the present appellant Susila Naik as the legal guardian of the minor Srikanta Naik was cancelled.

( 3 ) IT transpires from the impugned order that during the hearing before the Court below the present appellant Susila Naik examined herself as P. W. 1 present respondent No. 2 Binapani Patel examined herself as O. P. W. 1 and her husband as O. P. W. 2 Susila Naik stated that she was appointed as the guardian in respect of the property of minor Srikanta Naik and as per the condition she was to cultivate the landed properties of the minor and render accounts every year.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case are not disputed but a point of law ha