1. The lower Court's order was passed on the death of a minor to whose property it had appointed a guardian, and directed the handing over of the property by that guardian to one of those, who claimed as the deceased minor's heir.
2. It is urged, first, that it had no power to pass such an order and should have directed the guardian to institute an interpleader suit. But it is not shown how it had the right to give him any such direction. Section 41 (3) of the Guardians and 'Wards Act (VIII of 1890) appears wide enough to cover the Court's action; and the Court in Murlidhar Natha v. Valahhdas Murlidhar 3 Ind. Cas. 172 appears to have acted similarly without objection being taken by the Appellate Court or the parties. In these circumstances I hold that the lower Court's action was within its powers.
3. It is then contended that the lower Court used its discretion wrongly. It had materials before it which it apparently considered, and we are not prepared to say that its discretion was not rightly exercised
4. The Letters Patent Appeals and the Civil Revision Petition fail and are dismissed with costs, except in Letters Patent Appeal No. 134 of 1917 in which there is no appearance.
Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
5. I feel clear in my own mind that the words in Section 41, Clause (3), of the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890) 'for any cause' are not confined to the causes mentioned in Clauses (l) and (2) and that when the death of the minor ward occurs that also is a 'cause' which puts an end to the powers of the property guardian within the meaning of the expression 'any cause'.
6. I am also clear that the expression 'property belonging to the ward' in the same clause includes property which belonged to the person who was a ward though by the cessation of his minority or by his death, be ceased to be a ward. That under Section 41, Clause (3). of the Guardians and Wards Act the Court has jurisdiction to pass orders where the powers of the guardian cease through the minor's death seems to have been assumed as a matter of course in the case of Murlidhar Natha v. Valabhdas Murlidhar 3 Ind. Cas. 172; 11 Bom. L.R. 512.
7. I agree, therefore, that these appeals and the Civil Revision Petition should be dismissed with costs as regards Letters Patent Appeal No. 133 of 1917 and Civil Revision Petition No. 587 of 1917.