Order passed by the court which was no jurisdiction may be challenged u/A 227.

This revision is filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India against an ex parte order of ad interim injunction granted by the lower court.

2. The order of ad-interim injunction waspassed in a petition filed by the respondent herein, along with a Guardian O.P. to declare and appoint him as the person and property guardian of Minor Varsha Dhanashree, and also for costs of the proceedings.

3. The properties scheduled to that petition belonged to one Mohanraj who died on 211. 1997. First petitioner herein is his widow, and petitioners 2 and 3 are her parents. Varsha Dhanashree is the daughter born to Mohanraj through the first petitioner, and her date of birth is 22. 1991. It is the case of the respondent herein in the Guardian O.P. that late Mohanraj executed a Will whereby he has appointed the respondent along with the first petitioner herein as joint guardian of. person and property of the minor. It is said that the Will came into force on the death of Mohanraj. In the Will, the properties scheduled to the Guardian O.P. were allotted to his (Mohanraj’s) daughter. The reason for filing the Guardian O.P. is stated to be, an alleged attempt by the minor’s mother (first petitioner herein) to alienate the properties, and also on the basis of an allegation that she attempts to contract a re-marriage. It is also alleged by the respondent herein that he is in possession of the properties scheduled to the O.P. and that he is collecting the rent. Along with the O.P., he filed an injunction application, to restrain the petitioners herein from disturbing his possession and management of the properties either by alternating or otherwise encumbering the same. An ad-interim injunction was granted, and the same is challenged in this, Revision Petition.

4. In the Original Petition, in paragraph 11, it is said that the deceased Mohanraj entrusted the respondent herein with the management of the petition mentioned properties since he was a local resident of Trichy. To that effect, deceased Mohanraj has given a letter also, and the same has been filed along with the Origianl Petition.

5. According to the respondent herein, of the properties scheduled to the Guardian O.P., the first Item is vacant, and the same is kept under lock and key, and the same is in his custody. Item 2 house has been rented out to one Padmini for Rs. 1,500 p.m. and the rent is collected only by him. It is further said that the respondent herein is thus in possession and management of those properties, for and on behalf of the minor, who is the absolute owner of the same.

6. Regarding residence of the minor, it is said that the first petitioner herein is permanently residing at Madras, and she is employed at Madras, and she is residing with her parents. It is further said that the minor Varsha Dhanashree is at present residing with her mother at Madras.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner herein submitted that even though the impugned order was passed ex parte, the same is one without jurisdiction and, therefore it will be well within the powers of this court to interfere under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

8. Learned Senior Counsel brought to my notice Sec.9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, regarding the factum of jurisdiction, which reads thus:

“9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain application: (1) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides.

.(2) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property.

.(3) If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinari