Skip to content


Muhammad Abdul Rab Vs. Khodaija Bibi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All457
AppellantMuhammad Abdul Rab
RespondentKhodaija Bibi
Excerpt:
- - the case is quite different from an attempt to enforce an order against a third party who may be a perfect stranger to such proceedings......appellant was appointed guardian of the minor, mt. khodaija, and under sanction of the district judge, he exchanged certain property of her own with that of his minor ward on the 25th of july, 1912. in 1916 he was discharged, and the girl's father was appointed her guardian. subsequently she was married, and her husband aziz ahmad was appointed her guardian. aziz ahmad applied to the district judge for re-opening the exchange on the ground that it was highly disadvantageous to his minor wife. the learned judge, after enquiry, passed an order, on the 28th of april, 1921, setting aside the deed of exchange and ordering abdul rab, the appellant, to return the property which belonged to the minor before the exchange. this order expressly mentioned that abdul rab was agreeable to the.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. This appeal arises under the Guardians and Wards Act. The appellant was appointed guardian of the minor, Mt. Khodaija, and under sanction of the District Judge, he exchanged certain property of her own with that of his minor ward on the 25th of July, 1912. In 1916 he was discharged, and the girl's father was appointed her guardian. Subsequently she was married, and her husband Aziz Ahmad was appointed her guardian. Aziz Ahmad applied to the District Judge for re-opening the exchange on the ground that it was highly disadvantageous to his minor wife. The learned Judge, after enquiry, passed an order, on the 28th of April, 1921, setting aside the deed of exchange and ordering Abdul Rab, the appellant, to return the property which belonged to the minor before the exchange. This order expressly mentioned that Abdul Rab was agreeable to the cancellation of the exchange. Abdul Rab came up in revision here. This revision was dismissed on the ground that the said order was a consent order and was not open to be challenged.

2. Aziz Ahmad has put that order in execution and obtained delivery of possession of the property. Subsequent to the delivery of possession Abdul Rab applied to the Court below to restore to him the possession on the ground that the order was without jurisdiction. His application has been refused. Hence this appeal.

3. We are of opinion that when the order dated the 28th of April, 1921, was passed on the basis of consent, it is no longer open to Abdul Rab to contend that that order was passed without jurisdiction. It is true that on that date he had been discharged from the guardianship, but liabilities of even a discharged guardian do continue after his discharge as regards any fraud which may subsequently be discovered. This is expressly provided in Section 41 (4) of the Act VIII of 1890. It must, therefore, be deemed that the order of the 28th of April, 1921, was passed against Abdul Rab directing him as a guardian still under the control of the District Judge.

4. An order passed against the guardian is certainly executable. A guardian is an officer of the Court and is responsible to the Court which appointed him as guardian for due management of the property of the ward and for restoration of any property of the ward that remains in his possession. Orders against him can be executed in proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act. The case is quite different from an attempt to enforce an order against a third party who may be a perfect stranger to such proceedings. We accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //