RAJENDRA PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. ABNASH KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the District Judge, Saharanpur, be directed not to pay the amount of Rs. 57,865 to the first respondent.

(2.) THE matter arises out of proceedings for guardianship of the property of Kamal Kishore, minor son of the deceased Seth Shiv Prasad. Seth Shiv Prasad died in May 1957 leaving 7 sons from his first wife and from his second wife Smt. Abnash Kaur one minor son Kamal Kishore. At first one Indra Sen filed an application in 1960 before the District Judge, Saharanpur, for appointment as the guardian of the properties of the minor. That was dismissed on 10th March, 1962 whereafter the present petitioner made another application for the same purpose. During the pendency of these proceedings the petitioner made an application to the District Judge for directing that the dividends payable to the minor by Lord Krishna Sugar Mills be deposited in his Court. The District Judge passed orders accordingly. For the years 1961-62 to 1964-65 a sum of Rs. 57,865 was thus deposited with the Punjab National Bank, Ltd., under the orders of the District Judge, Saharanpur. The District Judge by his order dated 14-4-1.966 held that he had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application and he directed that it be returned to the petitioner for presentation to the proper Court. Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal (F.A.F.O No. 174 of 1966) against this order. The appeal was filed on 18-5-1966 along with an application for an injunction that the District judge be directed not to pay out the amount of dividends to the respondent Abnash Kaur or to any other person other than the guardian of the minor appointed by the Court. The First Appeal from Order was admitted on 23-8-1966 and the same day the Bench issued an ad interim injunction directing the District Judge not to pay out the amount to any one. Meanwhile, the present petition was filed on 8-8-1966 and a similar ad interim order was obtained in this writ petition.

(3.) ON the merits of this writ petition learned counsel urged that since the District Judge held that he had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition for guardianship, he in law does not possess any jurisdiction to pass any orders with respect to the payment of the amount of dividend to any person except the Lord Krishna Sugar Mills from whom the money was summoned or to any person who may be appointed as the guardian of the minor's property by the Court. In other words the District Judge, so the submission runs, has no jurisdiction to pay the money to the first respondent who is the mother of the minor and as such his natural guardian.