KUPPAMMAL Vs. MUNIAPPA CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the minor's guardian was the mother, the present petitioner, appointed on 29 November, 1919. Some time before that the minor lived with 2nd respondent, her uncle, presumably against the wishes of the mother. The girl was returned to the mother on 18th December, 1919 and the present application is by the mother for the return of two jewels said to have been on the person of the minor when she went to 2nd respondent. The mother's attitude is a peculiar one. She denies having put in any such application and now says the District Judge has acted without jurisdiction. I think he has. The mother is no doubt a person interested in the minor under Section 43(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act but it is only the conduct or proceedings of any guardian appointed or declared by the Court which can be called in question. The 2nd respondent has ceased at the end of 1919 to be even a de facto guardian and was not such at the date of the application by the mother in 1922. The case therefore in Wallace Sitha Bai V/s. Wallace Radha Bai (1918) 36 M.L.J. 189 has no application.

(2.) THE learned District Judge has proceeded on the powers conferred by Section 43 of the Act. But as pointed out in Komma Somakka V/s. Kovidala Pedda Ramiah (1911) 10 M.L.T. 483 the Act does not profess to give the District Court any power or authority over persons other than the guardian of the minor except in certain instances which do not apply here. I therefore think in the circumstances of this case the District Judge acted without jurisdiction and he had no right to call upon 2nd respondent to deliver up the jewels under Section 43 of the Guardians and Wards Act. I think interference is called for and I allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order of the District Judge with costs.