Skip to content


In Re: Naduvath Mannakel Subramanyan Nambudripad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad187
AppellantIn Re: Naduvath Mannakel Subramanyan Nambudripad
Excerpt:
regulation v of 1804, section 20 - guardian--minor--estate paying revenue to government--jurisdiction of district court. - - this seems to be the proper construction, having regard to regulation x of 1831, which refers to property of minors that was subject to be taken in management, but which was not in fact taken in management as well as of property actually taken in management, by the court of wards......power to a zila (now district) judge to appoint a guardian to a minor in a case where the court of wards have jurisdiction to do so, viz., in cases where the minor is entitled to property paying revenue to government.3. section 20 of the regulation v of 1804 and act xiv of 1858 have been held by a majority of the court in 1871* to refer only to cases where the court of wards have not jurisdiction.4. whether the court of wards exercise their jurisdiction or not, this court considered, was not material on the question whether the zila court had jurisdiction. this seems to be the proper construction, having regard to regulation x of 1831, which refers to property of minors that was subject to be taken in management, but which was not in fact taken in management as well as of property.....
Judgment:

Kernan, J.

1. We think the Judge is right. The minor in this case has property paying revenue to Government.

2. This Court has held that Regulations V of 1804 and X of 1831 do not give power to a Zila (now District) Judge to appoint a guardian to a minor in a case where the Court of Wards have jurisdiction to do so, viz., in cases where the minor is entitled to property paying revenue to Government.

3. Section 20 of the Regulation V of 1804 and Act XIV of 1858 have been held by a majority of the Court in 1871* to refer only to cases where the Court of Wards have not jurisdiction.

4. Whether the Court of Wards exercise their jurisdiction or not, this Court considered, was not material on the question whether the Zila Court had jurisdiction. This seems to be the proper construction, having regard to Regulation X of 1831, which refers to property of minors that was subject to be taken in management, but which was not in fact taken in management as well as of property actually taken in management, by the Court of Wards.

5. There is a distinction made in Section 3 of the Regulation X of 1831 between property not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Wards, and property, mentioned in Section 1, not taken under the management of the Court of Wards.

6. Act XIV of 1858 gives power to the Zila Courts over property of minors 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Wards.' This seems to warrant the construction of the Regulation and Act of 1858 that jurisdiction is given to the Zila Courts only in cases of minors owning property not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Wards, i.e., not having property which the Court of Wards could take the management of, viz., property paying revenue to Government. Regulation III of 1802 authorizes possession to be taken by a guardian or nearest of kin. However, we cannot interfere, and must dismiss the petition.


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