1. This appeal has arisen out of a proceeding under Act 42 of 1923 (the Mussalman Wakf Act), started on an application made to the learned District Judge of 24-Pargannas praying that a, mutawali in possession of wakf properties be directed to submit a statement of the particulars of the wakf as required by Section 3 of the Act, that the account submitted by the mutawali be examined and audited, and that the applicant be allowed to inspect and obtain copies of statements and particulars furnished by the mutawali. At a certain stage of the proceeding, parties other than the applicants who started the same, applied for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of all the wakf properties for reasons stated by them in their application before the Court. The application for appointment of a receiver was granted by the learned District Judge, and this appeal was directed against the orders appointing a receiver passed on 12th and 16th September 1935. An objection to the maintainability of the appeal was raised before us, and we are of opinion that an appeal from the orders complained of does not lie, as they are made in a proceeding under Act 42 of 1923. There can, however, be no question that a question of the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below arises in the case before us. In our judgment, the orders appointing a receiver in the proceeding pending before the Court below were passed under an entire misapprehension of the scope and operation of the provisions contained in Act 42 of 1923, as there was no jurisdiction conferred on the District Judge in the exercise of which a receiver could be appointed by him in a proceeding started on an application for direction on a mutawali to file particulars and accounts as contemplated by Act 42 of 1923, which specifically provided for enforcement of orders in that behalf by penalties in the shape of fine.
2. The orders passed by the learned District Judge on 12th and 16th September 1935 must, in the above view of the case before us, be set aside as passed without jurisdiction, and we direct accordingly. The receiver appointed by the learned District Judge is to be discharged and the proceeding under Act 42 of 1923 pending before the Court below in which the receiver was appointed is to be dealt with by the learned District Judge, in accordance with law. No orders are necessary on the application filed by the appellant in Court on 8th April 1936. The application filed in Court to-day will be kept on the record and the decision in the case before us is given on that application the prayer made in the same being allowed. The appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs either in the appeal or in the application. Let the records be returned as soon as possible.