SHEOSAJANSINGH AMBERSINGH Vs. GOKULSINGH BISANSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question here is whether in a guardian and wards proceeding the District Judge can proceed against a stranger and direct him to hand over the ward's property to the guardian.

(2.) THE non-applicant Gokulsingh was appointed guardian of the person and property of a minor Kasiabai on 1st May 1939. Kasiabai was then possessed of an occupancy holding which was duly placed in the guardian's possession on his appointment. Kasiabai died on 24th May 1945 and thereupon the landlord dispossessed Gokulsingh and entered into possession of the property claiming that the tenancy had escheated to him because Kasiabai left no heirs. Gokulsingh claims to be the heir and applied to the Court to be placed in possession.

(3.) OF the cases cited at the bar Harbans Singh v. Rajindar Kunwar A.I.R. (12) 1925 ALL. 277 and Chandrika Rai v. Srikant Rai AIR (16) 1929 ALL. 597 broadly enunciate this principle though the facts may not be entirely similar. The ease of Sugrabi v. Mustakem Khan AIR (31) 1944 Nag. 334 is not in point because there the possession of the property was with the guardian and not a stranger and the Court exercised its powers of control over the guardian.