John Yarker – In Memoriam

of .1912, and it" was only on receipt of the letter dated February 7, 1912, that the plaintiff realized fully howmalicious and mendacious the defendant was and how totally unfit she was to be the guardian of the boys. 10. The plaintiff submits that as the guardian of the boys he is entitled to their custody, and even otherwise, in the interest of the boys and their moral welfare, the defendant ought to be compelled‘to give them up to the plaintiff or to such other person as the Court may think fit. The plaintiff sent a notice on the 11th July demanding that the boys should be brought back to India and replaced under the guardianship and custody of the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that he had no authority and could not have dele- gated-his parental rights to the defendant. Even assuming, however, that he could do so he was at liberty to revoke it at any time, especially with a view to promote the moral welfare of the boys, and that after the receipt of the said letter the defendant had no authority to keep the boys with herself. In answer to the plaintiff's notice the defendant merely acknow- ledged its" receipt and did nothing more, and the plaintiff believes that she has left the b0ys in England. 11. The cause of the action arose partly at Adyar in the years 1910, 1911 and 1912, when the plaintiff discovered the various matters referred to above in relation to the bring— ing up of the boys, and lastly on or about July 11, 1912, when the plaintiff sent a registered. notice demanding delivery of the minors. 12. The value of the relief for the purposes of jurisdiction is Rs. 3000. 13. The plaintiff prays for judgment: 22