GOVIND RAM Vs. BHOOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application filed by one Govind Ram son of Bishna of Kishangarh, against an order of the Civil Judge, Alwar, dated the 10th of Aug., 1951, by which a direction was issued to the Collector of Alwar that the possession of the property of the minor which had been handed over by the Naib Nazim to Govind Ram should be restored to the persons who were in possession of the property at the time of the filing of the guardianship application. A further direction was given that in future the property of the minor should be managed through the instrumentality of the Sub-Divisional Officer of Tijara and not through the Naib Nazim.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an application under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act was filed by one Bhola Ram of Bas Kirpal Nagar for appointment of a guardian of the property and person of Mohar Singh minor. Bhola Ram alleged that he was the paternal uncle of Mohar Singh, who was only years of age. The maternal uncle of the minor was said to be in possession of some of the property of the minor. Similarly the husband of the father's sister of the minor was also said to be in possession of some of the minor's property. There was, therefore, a dispute between the relatives of the minor regarding the appointment of guardian of the property and person of the minor. The case was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Alwar, for some time, and on an application made under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the Civil Judge on the 19th of March, 1951, allowed the opposite party to keep the custody of the minor, but made over the custody of the property of the minor to the Collector with a direction to appoint some local Naib-Tehsildar or any other revenue officer as he may deem proper to act as manager of the property, who was also to prepare an inventory of the property of the minor and to file it with the court and also to render accounts at the end of six months regularly. It was also specified in the order that the said manager might manage the property through the instrumentality of the relatives of the minor, but should keep personal supervision over the same. In accordance with the direction of the aforesaid order, the Collector appointed the Naib Nazim to act as manager of the property of the minor. The opposite party was not satisfied with the management by the Naib Nazim, and complained to the Court of the Civil Judge on the 20th of July, 1951, saying that the Naib Nazim was prejudiced against him, and he did not manage the property of the minor through the instrumentality of the relatives of the minor as was directed by the order of the Court. On this application, the Civil Judge issued a direction to the Collector on the 21st of July, 1951 requesting him to appoint the Sub-Divisional Officer as the manager of the property of the minor in place of the Naib Nazim. Before this order could reach the Naib Nazim, through the Collector, he held an auction and granted a lease of certain agricultural lands of the minor to Govind Ram in consideration of a certain amount to be paid by him. The property was handed over to Govind Ram for cultivation. On a further application by the opposite party, the Civil Judge, on the 10th of Aug., 1951, further directed the Collector to take the possession of the property from Govind Ram and to hand it over to the persons who were in possession thereof at the time of the filing of the application for appointment of a guardian of the person and property of the minor. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the order of the Civil Judge, which had been made on the 10th of Aug., 1951, first filed an objection petition in the Court of the Civil Judge, but failed to appear before him, and the objection petition was, therefore, dismissed. He has, however, come to this Court against the order of the Civil Judge, dated the 10th of Aug., 1951, in revision under section 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act.

(3.) Three objections were pressed at the time of the hearing of this application, viz., (1) that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere in the management of the property when the Collector had been appointed as the manager of the property of the minor, (2) that the order of the Civil Judge was bad in law as it had been made without allowing an opportunity of being heard to Govind Ram against whom the order was made, and (3) that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to deal with the rights and interests of third persons while dealing with a case under the Guardians and Wards Act for the appointment of a guardian of the person and property of a minor.