1. The order of the learned Judge cannot be sustained and in- fact no serious attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondent to sustain it. By his order the learned Judge directed the present appellant, who was the contesting respondent before him, to deliver possession of certain items of Immovable property to the Official Trustee, who filed an application for directions regarding delivery of possession of them as the properties of the minor. The appellant before us denied the title of the minor to the properties and pleaded that they were joint family properties which survived to him on tile death of the minor's father.' In these circumstances the Court has no power, under any section of the Guardians and Wards Act, to direct delivery of possession of properties which are not admitted to be the properties of the minor. There is no provision in the Guardians and Wards Act which enables the Court to make such an order for delivery of possession even if the Court is prima facie satisfied with the title of the minor. Nor is there any provision for adjudication of competing claims to the property. No authority has been cited to us in which Section 33 of the Guardians and Wards Act, on which the learned Judge relies has been construed to confer a power on the Court to direct delivery of possession of property in the possession of strangers, simply on a prima facie satisfaction of the title of the minor to such property. The appeal is allowed and the application of the Official Trustee will be dismissed. The appellant will get the costs of the appeal and the application from the estate of the minor. The Official Trustee will also be entitled to take his costs from out of the estate as he apparently filed the 'application on account of certain observations made by the learned Judge earlier in the proceedings.