1. This is an application by one Chandrika Rai against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Ghazipur on 1st September 1927, directing the applicant to pay to the respondent a certain sum of money which was to be reduced, partially, in the case of his returning certain bullocks. It appears that the applicant's father Sukhdeo Rai was appointed the guardian of certain minors. Sukhdeo Rai having died, the applicant continued to be in possession of the minor's property. Sri Kanth Rai, the respondent was then appointed the guardian of the minors. At his instance or that of the Judge himself, the applicant was called upon to furnish an account of the minor's properties he had in his possession. He furnished an account without any objection. The accounts were scrutinized and a Commissioner was appointed. As the result of the Commissioner's investigation land report, the order complained of was made.
2. The points that have been taken for revision are that the learned District Judge has erred in not treating the report in a certain manner. In our opinion, we cannot go into the merits of the case. The revision should however succeed, on this simple ground, that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to make an order against the applicant who was not a guardian appointed by him. If he happened to be in possession of the minor's property, he was so as a trespasser. The District Judge can certainly direct Sri Kanth to institute a suit for accounts against the applicant and in that suit, the question, how much is payable by the applicant, may be determined. The applicant will then have a chance of taking his case before an appellate Court. As the things stand, we cannot scrutinize the evidence that was taken before the District Judge, because we are not sitting in appeal against his order. We set aside the order of the learned District Judge as passed without jurisdiction. We make no order as to coats because, on the grounds taken by the applicant, he had no case to be put before us.