The hereditary trusteeship of a religious institution constitutes property within the ambit of Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, and the court has the power to appoint a guardian to a minor in respect of trust properties.

( 1 ) THE question referred to the Full Bench is whether a Court can appoint a guardian to a minor in respect of trust properties.

( 2 ) THE circumstances under which this revision petition arises are these. One kantheti Anjaneyulu founded "anjanoya Dasa Sri Ramanuja Kootam", endowed some properties to the institution and constituted himself a trustee. Under the settlement deed making the endowment, he made a provision that the trusteeship should vest in his family hereditarily. Under the same instrument, the founder appointed the present petitioner the guardian of his minor son to manage the trust properties. Alleging that the present petitioner was misappropriating the income from the institution and mismanaging its affairs, the present respondent (a close relation) moved the District Court, Krishna, under Section 39 of the Guardians and Wards Act for removal of the petitioner and to appoint a fit and proper person "as the guardian for the minor hereditary trustee" and for other incidental reliefs.

( 3 ) A preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of that petition on the ground that the properties to he managed by the guardian did not belong to the minor. The objection was overruled by the District Judge who thought that the petition was sustainable and that it was competent for the court to go into the merits of the petition. This revision petition is against the order of the district Judge on the preliminary issue.

( 4 ) IT is contended by Sri Rajeswararao, counsel for the petitioner on the authority of Venkatachalapathi Aiyar v. T. S. Pandara Sannadhi, 6 Mad LW 637: (AIR 1917 Mad 9); Varadachariar v. Raja Ramakrishanamba Garu, 44 Mad LJ 367: (AIR 1923 Mad 497 and Kilby v. Mt. Bahuria Sheoratan Kuar, AIR 1922 Pat 527, that no guardian could be appointed to a minor to manage trust properties, as trusteeship is not property within the purview of Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The argument proceeded that if such an appointment falls outside the scope of Section 7 of the aforesaid Act, no relief could be given to the respondent. The answer to this question turns upon the interpretation of Section 7 of the Act.

( 5 ) SECTION 7 of the Act in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this enquiry recites :" (1) Where the court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a minor that an order should be made- (a) appointing a guardian of his person or property or both, or (b) declaring a person to be such a guardian, the court may make an order accordingly. "section 39 of the Act provides for the removal of the guardian in certain contingencies.

( 6 ) THE first thing that requires to be considered is whether the hereditary trusteeship of a temple or any religious institution is property which permits the appointment of a guardian. If the right of making an institution hereditarily is property the terms of Section 7 are fulfilled and it would well be within the competence of a court to appoint a guardian. On the other hand, if the expression property is not comprehensive enough to embrace the hereditary trusteeship, it falls outside that section.

( 7 ) IN 6 Mad LW 637: (AIR 1917 Mad 9), it was laid down that it was not competent to District Court acting under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act to appoint a guardian in respect of properties vested in a trustee. There, during the minority of the plaintiff, the court, purporting to act under that section, appointed one Thambiran as the guardian of the person and property of the minor plaintiff. The guardian obtained sanction of the Court under section 29 to sell some of the properties of the mutt. On attaining majority, the Pandaram Sannadhi sued to set aside the sales and that suit was decreed by the trial court. In the second appeal by the aggrieved alienees, it was observed that the order of the District Court appointing a trust guardian and the proceedings taken thereunder were wholly without jurisdiction. There was no discussion as