I. MAHMUD, J.-This is a L. P. A. From the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court (Dorab Patel, J., as he then was) dated F-9-1971 dismissing, as not maintainable, the appeal filed by the appellant from the order passed by the Court of the Family Judge. Hyderabad dated 6-8-1971.
2. Briefly, the facts are that one Alimuddin died in Tando Allahyar on 11-1-1970 leaving behind him, inter alia, a widow and 4 minor children from his two pre-deceased wives anal two adult daughters. Soon after hit death, one Saleem. Brother of the deceased's first wife, assumed de facto management of the deceased's agricultural lands and leased the leads to the appellant. Saadat A.I Khan by a lease dead dated :27-4-1970. Dis;me3 arose about the guardianship of the minors, Therefore, Muhammad Yaqoob respondent No. 1, the nephew of the deceased Aleemuddin applied to the Family Court for his appointment as guardian under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (herein-after referred to as the Act) and also applied for appointment of receiver of the lands. The learned Family Judge appointed the Nazir of the Court as interim receiver and confirmed the appointment by his order dated 6-8-1971 and also ordered that the person and property of the minors should be given in the custody of the Court of Wards. Being aggrieved by the said .Order in so far as it affected the lands in his occupation, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court (Misc. Appeal No. 72 of 1971). The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by Dorab Patel, J. (as he then was) by the impugned Judgment dated 8-9-1971. The learned Judge held that no appeal lay under section 47 of the said Act. He also declined to treat the appeal as a revision under section 48 of the said Act, in the exercise in his discretion.
3. We have heard Mr. Awan on behalf of the appellant. His submission is that the learned .Fudge failed to consider that the Family Court, as a Guardianship Court, had no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of lands in possession of the appellant as a third party. Even assuming that he was a trespasser. Ire cited the case of Jaffar A.I and others v. Mst. Nargis Bai PLD 1960 Kar. 452 which held that a Guardianship Court has no jurisdiction to decide a disputed claim between a minor and a third person, who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. He also cited the case of Chadraika R.I v. Srikant R.I AIR 1929 All. 597 (1) which held that the District Judge who appoints a person as guardian of a minor has no jurisdiction to pass any order against the person who was in possession of the minor's property as trespasser prior to such an appointment and all that he can do is to direct the guardian to bring a suit against the trespasser to recover possession.
4. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that no appeal lay from the order of the Family Court to the High Court under section 47 of the said Act, as it was not an order of the kind mentioned therein.
The learned A Judge was therefore right in holding that the appeal was not maintainable. This was also hold by the Full Bench in Mst. Zainunnisa v. Muhammad Mozammil PLD 1972 Kar. 401 in so far as a Civil Judge acted as a Family Court was concerned. We also see no reason to interfere with the exercise of the discretion in declining to treat the appeal as a revision under section 48 of the said Act.
5. There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.