P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

Zia Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th February 1960. This appeal is directed against the order of Mr. Feroze Nana Ghulamally, District Judge, Karachi, dated 3rd October 1959 in guardianship matter, Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 1959. Briefly, the facts leading to this appeal are that one Qassimali died at Karachi on 1‑11‑1958 leaving behind Mst. Nargisbai as his widow and a minor son Riaz Ahmad aged about one year. Appellant No. 1 is the brother of the deceased and appellants 2 and 3 are the sisters of the deceased. The respondent filed an application before the District Judge for her appointment as guardian of the person and property of the minor. She was appointed as guardian of the person of the minor on 26th February 1959 and was directed to make a separate application for her appointment as guardian of the property of the minor under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. Accordingly she made an application to that effect in April 1959, which was contested by the appellants. There was dispute between the parties in respect of the assets left by the deceased. The disputed items included the tenancy right of premises No. 60/3 in Haji Bundeali Building situated at Kharadar, and certain amount deposited by the deceased with his brother Jaffar Ali. The Respondent claimed that the tenancy right belonged to her husband and she along with her son Riaz Ahmad has inherited it, but appellant Jaffar claimed it as exclusively belonging to him. The learned Judge after recording the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the said tenancy right belonged to the deceased, and the minor being the heir was also entitled to it, but directed the respondent to file a suit for establishing the minor's right in respect of the alleged amount deposited with Jaffar ali. He appointed the respondent as guardian in respect of the Savings Bank Accounts of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500 in the Habib Bank, Karachi and also directed that the motor‑cycle of the deceased will be sold through the Nazir and its sale proceeds will be deposited in Court, but if the respondent satisfies the Court that it can be used as a motor‑cycle rickshaw and bring some additional income, the same may not be sold. The appellants have challenged the finding of the learned District Judge in respect of the tenancy right of premises 60/3 situated in Haji Bundeali Building, Newnham Road, Karachi. Mr. Abbasi, the learned counsel for the appellants has strongly urged before me that the learned District Judge acted beyond his jurisdiction in declaring the tenancy right of the above‑mentioned property as belonging to the deceased. The learned counsel contended that the Guardianship Court is not entitled to decide controversial points between the minor and the third parties who are not subject to its jurisdiction. Nobody can dispute this proposition of law. The learned District Judge, however, in this case has not finally decided the rights of the parties in respect of tenancy rights. He only considered this question with a view to find out the property left by the deceased. The question of the tenancy right of the above‑mentioned property was hotly contested by the parties, and the Court in that context came to the conclu?sion that prima facie it vested in the deceased. It was for this very reason that the District Judge made no directions or passed any order against the appellant for the delivery of the possession of premises in question to the respondent as guardian of the minor. This position is very clear to me from the manner in which the learned District Judge approached the whole question. The learned counsel for the respondent has also conceded that the effect of the order of the learned District Judge only entitles the respondent to claim the premises in dispute and the benefit arising out of the tenancy right from the appellant through a competent Court. It appears to me also that in law a Guardianship Court has no jurisdiction to decide disputed claim between the minor and third person. This view finds support in K. Somakka v. K. P.I Ramiah (I L R 36 Mad, 39) and A. Rajagopal Mudliar v. Official Trustee to the High Court, Madras (A I R 1952 Mad. 79). If the learned District Judge in this case had directed the appellants to deliver the possession of the property in dispute to the respondent as guardian of the minor, I would have certainly interfered in this matter, but since he has passed no such order, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. I will, however, direct the learned District Judge that in pursuance of the order passed on 3rd of October 1959 declaring the tenancy right as belonging to the deceased, no further steps will be taken and the appellants will not be evicted from the premises in question. In law, the respondent in order to protect the interest of the minor in respect of the property in dispute shall have to approach by separate action the Court of competent jurisdiction. It was next argued on behalf of the appellants that the learned District Judge was not justified in allowing the respondent to ply a motor‑cycle rickshaw as a means of business. But 'no such order has been passed by the learned District Judge. He only observed that if the respondent satisfied the Court that the motor‑cycle can he made use of as a motor‑cycle rickshaw and bring some additional income towards her and minor's maintenance, it may not be sold. The learned counsel for the appellants on realising the implication of this order, has not pressed this point before me. No other point is urged by the appellant's counsel. Accordingly I see no ground to interfere in this matter. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. K. B. A.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.