MT. SUGRABI D/O. ABDUL AZIZ KHAN (MARRIED TO ABDUL JABAR), MINOR GURADIAN Vs. MUSTAKEM KHAN S/O. ABDUL MAJID KHAN MUSSALMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order passed by the Additional District Judge, Balaghat, in a case arising out of the Guardians and Wards Act. A ward of the Court died and consequently by virtue of Section 41(3), Guardians and Wards Act, the Court required the receiver, who was managing the property which consisted of shares in villages, to deliver possession as directed by it. There were two claimants and as the case was one of an estate owned by a Mahomedan the correct devolution of the property is not one which is immediately apparent. One of the claimants was Mt. Sugrabi who was also a ward of the Court in another case and the other claimants consisted of a body of three brothers who claimed as residuaries of the estate and claimed half of the estate. They had succeeded in obtaining mutation of the village shares to the extent of their claim in their favour. It was agreed in the Additional District Judge's Court that Mt. Sugrabi was undoubtedly entitled to one half. The learned Judge recorded his opinion that under the Mahomedan law the three brothers would be entitled to what remained after allotting to Sugrabi her half share adding to this the fact that in mutation proceedings not only in the first Court but in appeal they had succeeded in having mutation made in their names. The Court directed that half the property should be delivered to Mt. Sugrabi and the other half to the three brothers who claimed as residuaries. It was added that Mt. Sugrabi, who contended that the whole of the property should be delivered to her, could file a suit in a civil Court to establish her claim.

(2.) IN the revision application it is urged that it was not competent on the part of the Court acting in Guardians and Wards case to decide whether or not the non-applicants, that is to say the three brothers, were claimants to the estate of the deceased Abdul Jabbar and that it was they who should have been directed to file a suit, and that Mt. Sugrabi being an undisputed sharer in the estate should have been placed in possession of the entire property. It was further urged that as the learned Judge had examined the claim of the non-applicants he should also have examined Mt. Sugrabi's claim, whether she was entitled to share as a sister after her father's death in one of the villages. In respect of this the Additional District Judge decided that this-was a question which had arisen before Abdul Jabbar came into the property and that it was not one which could be considered by him: in handing over the property which was recorded in Abdul Jabbar's name. That of course is obvious and the point need not be considered further. The application in revision ends with the prayer that the order directing the non-applicants to take possession of a half share in the villages be set aside and that the whole property be given to> Mt. Sugrabi.