The welfare of the minor is the primary consideration in appointing a guardian, and the conduct and intentions of the parties seeking guardianship are crucial factors in the court's decision.

( 1 ) THIS miscellaneous appeal under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for short) is directed against the order dated 9-7-1998 in Misc. Civil Suit No. 30/1998 by I Additional District Judge, Sagar, appointing respondent No. 1 Dharam Chand to be the guardians of the person and property of minor Palak.

( 2 ) FACTS not in dispute are that the minor Palak is the daughter of deceased Ashok Kumar Jain and respondent No. 2 Smt. Reeta. Ashok Kumar Jain was the elder brother of appellant No. 2 Vijay Kumar Jain. Appellant No. 1 is the wife of appellant No. 2. Respondent No. 1 Dharamchand is the father of Reeta and thus the maternal grandfather (Nana) of minor Palak. Ashok Kumar Jain, the father of minor Palak met with an unfortunate death in a motor accident on 20-11-1992. Minor Palak was born on 9-9- 1989 and was thus aged about 3 years at the time of death of her father Ashok Kumar Jain. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Reeta has remarried and is residing with her husband at Khargone. Minor Palak is at present residing with her maternal grand father (Nana), Res. No. 1 at Khurai, District Sagar.

( 3 ) THE appellants filed an application on 9-1-1995 under Section 10 of the 'act' for appointment as Guardian of person and property of minor Palak. It was averred therein that minor Palak was living in their guardianship and was being brought up by them. However, a month prior to the filing of the application, minor Palak was taken away by Res. No. 1 Dharamchand with him. The respondent No. 1 is thereafter not sending her back. It was also averred that since the respondent No. 2 Smt. Reeta has remarried, the minor cannot possibly reside with her mother. Petitioners/appellants also averred that they rented to bring up and educate the minor, in accordance with their family traditions and the welfare of the minor would be best served in living with the petitioners/appellants. The appellant No. 2 is an educated and a person of means having his own business. He is an income-tax payee. He is in a position to look after the minor in the best possible manner, while the respondent No. 1 is an old man, who would not be in a position to properly bring up minor Palak. Therefore, the appellants prayed that they be appointed as guardians of the minor.

( 4 ) THE respondents resisted the application. It was averred in their reply that minor Palak was aged about 6 years. She has a right over the ancestral property of her father, Late Ashok Kumar Jain. It was further averred that the appellants have filed the application to be appointed as Guardian of the minor so as to avoid parting with the huge share that minor Palak has in her ancestral property. It was averred by the respondents that after the death of Ashok Kumar Jain on 20-11-1992, the appellants have never cared to enquire and to make provision for the education and her daily needs. The respondent No. 1 is providing and taking care of all the needs of the minor since 1992. It was also averred that the respondent No. 1 has filed a suit in assertion of right of minor Palak over the ancestral property of her father Late Ashok Kumar Jain. The appointment of the appellants as Guardian of minor Palak would not subserve the purpose of welfare of the minor, who have evil intentions to grab her share in the property. The appellants and their family members misbehaved with an ill-treated the respondent No. 2, the mother of the minor, after the death of her husband, Ashok Kumar Jain. They have turned them out from the matrimonial home. It is further averred that the minor is receiving proper education in an English Medium School and is giving excellent performance. It was, therefore, prayed that the application of the petitioners/ appellants for appointment as Guardian of minor be dismissed and the respondent No. 1 be appointed as Guardian of person and property of the minor.

( 5 ) THE learned trial Court framed issues as to whether it would be proper to