PANDIT BENI PRASAD Vs. MUSAMMAT PARVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order in this case (First Appeal, from Order No. 140 of 1932) will also govern and dispose of Civil Revision No. 543 of 1932.

(2.) Beni Prasad is the uncle of one Musammat Shanti who is a minor. Musammat Parbati, the own sister of the minor is the wife of one Yagudatta. The minor, who lives with them, owns some movable property which is in the hands of Musammat Parbati and Her husband who both reside at Hathras which is within the jurisdiction of the District Judge of Aligarh. Beni Prasad made an application to the District Judge of Agra where he himself resides praying that he should be appointed to act as guardian of the person and property of minor. The learned District Judge of Agra found that at the time the application was made by Beni Prasad the minor was residing at Hathras and her property was in possession of her sister and sister's husband at that place. He, therefore, held that the court having jurisdiction was the District Judge of Aligarh and returned the application to Beni Prasad for presentation to the court having jurisdiction. Beni Prasad thereupon presented the application to the learned District Judge of Aligarh who relying on Clause (h) of Section 39 of the Guardians and Wards Act and a ruling of this Court reported in Asghar All V/s. Amina Begam 24 Ind. Cas. 59 : 36 A. 280 : 12 A.L.J. 392, held that Beni Prasad who did not reside within his jurisdiction was not competent to make the application which was consequently dismissed by him. Beni Prasad has filed a revision application against the order of the learned District Judge of Agra and has preferred an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of Aligarh.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. In my opinion the order of the learned District Judge of Agra is correct and is not open to objection. Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act provides that if the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, then it should be made to the court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides and if the application is in respect of the property of the minor then it should be made either to the court in whose jurisdiction the minor ordinarily resides and to the court having jurisdiction in the place where the property is. Now, in the case before us the minor resides within the jurisdiction of the Aligarh court and her property is also in the same District. Under Clause 3 of Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the learned District Judge was justified in returning the application to Beni Prasad for presentation to the Aligarh Court, So, the revision application of Beni Prasad against the order of the learned District Judge of Agra must be dismissed.