1. As to guardianship of property the order of the Court below will stand. We are not satisfied from the affidavit of the appellants that any evidence was tendered but refused. It is open to them to file a fresh petition for showing that the father is unfit and for his removal from guardianship at any time they like.
2. As to guardianship of the person, agreeing with the view taken by my brother (Jackson. J.,) in C.M.A. No. 127 of 1924, I think the petitioner in the lower Court (respondent) cannot fee appointed or declared a guardian under Section 19 of Act VIII of 1890. If the Legislature intended that the prohibition in. Section 19 should apply only to persons other than the husband in : Clause (a) and father in Clause (b) the fact ought to lie made clear.
3. But there is no objection to an order directing the return of the child to the respondent if the District Judge thinks fit to do so. He has not applied his mind to this aspect of the case. The case will go lack for disposal by him. Bach party will bear its own costs in this Court.