1. It is not alleged that any one is entitled jointly with the lunatic to the possession or control of the estate, and, therefore, the cases Shan Kuar v. Mohanunda Sahoy I.L.R. 19 Cal. 301 Jhabbu Singh v. Ganga Bishan I.L.R. 17 ALL. 529 and Virupakshappa v. Nilgangavar I.L.R. 19 Bom. 309 are not in point.
2. It is next contended that the Judge had no jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for the property inasmuch as it was in the nature of trust property. The person adjudged to be a lunatic is the head of a mutt. His exact position and right in regard to the property vested in him as head of the mutt have not been investigated as the point was not raised in the Court below.
2. Prima facie, however, we must take it that the lunatic's right is similar to that of the heads of the mutts referred to in Sammantha Pandara v. Sellappa Chetti I.L.R. 2 Mad. 175 and Giyana Sdmbandha Pandara Sannadhi v. Kandasami Tambiran I.L.R. 10 Mad. 375. In this view it is quite clear that a guardian for such property may be appointed under Act XXXV of 1858. The term 'estate' used in the Act is very wide, and may properly be held to include such interest as the head of the mutt has in the property. It is not necessary for us to go further and decide whether the Act would be applicable if the property were trust property, pure and simple.
3. On the merit we think the Judge's order is right.
4. We dismiss the appeal with costs.