JUDGMENT : TUDBAIL, J. The appellant Ganga Narain is a man who used to reside in this district even in his youth in the house of his father-in-law. During the life-time of his wife his father-in-law used to deposit money either in the name of the appellant's wife or her children. On the death of the wife appellant applied to be appointed guardian of the person and property of his minor children. His object was to deal with the money, which was in deposit in the Bank of Bengal and the Post Office in the name of his wife. There was another deposit in the Post Office in the name of his minor son. In his application for guardianship he made no mention of this. He was appointed guardian of the person and property. His mother-in-law applied to the District Judge to have him removed from the post on the ground that he was attempting to take possession of the minor's property, that he had neglected his children, all of whom had died except one son, that the latter's education was totally neglected and lastly that the guardian had removed himself and the minor out of the jurisdiction of the court. In reply the appellant asserted a title in himself to all the property, which stood in the name of the children. In the course of hearing he expressed a wish that the property might be deemed to belong to his son. To the question as to what steps he took to educate his son he gave a reply which shows most clearly that he has totally neglected his child in this matter. He admits that he removed himself and the child from the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court and it is clear that he is a man whose means of livelihood are precarious. He has taken a second wife. On these grounds the court below has removed him and has appointed the grandmother as guardian of the remaining son. Musammant Kaunsilla is possessed of ample means and is quite willing to undertake the costs of education and bringing up without touching any money that belongs to the minor. From the point of view of the minor's welfare there can be no two opinions that the appellant is not a fit person to act as a guardian whereas Musammant Kaunsilla is. From the point of view of the minor's welfare there can be no two opinions that the appellant is not a fit person to act as a guardian whereas Musammant Kaunsilla is. In our opinion the order of the court below is a proper one. We dismiss the appeal with costs.