JUDGEMENT : SAMVATSAR, J. This appeal arises out of a proceeding for appointment of a manager under the provisions of the Lunacy Act. 2. There is at Ujjain a shop which carries on business in the name of Chintaman Ghansiram. One Rajmal is the present owner of this shop. It is alleged that this Rajmal is a person of unsound mind and is unable to manage his own affairs. 3. On 19-12-1951 the appellant Rambhabai who is the wife of Rajmal applied to the District Judge Ujjain to appoint a manager to take possession of the property of Rajmal and to manage the affairs. Rukminibai, the mother of Rajmal opposed the application filed by her daughter-in-law; but during the course of the proceedings her counsel reported no instructions. The Court therefore proceeded ex parte and after recording evidence held by its order dated 19-4-52 that Rajmal was a lunatic and was incapable of managing his property. By the same order the learned Judge appointed one Mr. Ganpatlal Gaud to act as a manager of Rajmals property. He was authorised to take possession of lunatics property and submit its list in Court. 4. When the manager went to take possession of the property, Rukminibai who had the keys of the safe, refused to open it contending that it contained her Stridhan and property belonging to her daughter Gulabbai. 5. The manager was unable to prepare a list but as a precaution he pasted slips by the Panchas, himself and the objector Rukminibai and reported the matter to the Court for necessary orders. 6. Rukminibai herself applied to the Court for setting aside the order D/-19-4-1952 and for restoring her property to her. 7. On 13-1-1953 the Court set aside the ex parte order and proceeded with the trial of the original application on merits. The Court recorded further evidence which the parties offered and by its order dated 26-12-1953 confirmed the finding that Rajmal was a person of unsound mind and was incapable of managing his own property. He appointed Mr. Ganpatlal Gaud Pleader at Ujjain to act as a manager and placed him in possession of the Lunatics property. 8. Rukminibai while contesting the main application had raised an objection that her ornaments and the ornaments of her daughter one Gulabbai were included in the list of property shown to belong to Rajmal. He appointed Mr. Ganpatlal Gaud Pleader at Ujjain to act as a manager and placed him in possession of the Lunatics property. 8. Rukminibai while contesting the main application had raised an objection that her ornaments and the ornaments of her daughter one Gulabbai were included in the list of property shown to belong to Rajmal. The learned Judge was satisfied about this fact and returned to Rukminibai the ornaments Arts. A to Z as shown in the receipt dated 29-12-1953. He also provided by his order that Rs. 75 should be paid per month for the maintenance of the respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by this order relating to the return of ornaments to Rukminibai the appellant, her daughter-in-law has preferred this appeal under the provisions of S. 83 of the Lunacy Act. Rukminibai has filed cross-objections. Both the appeal and the Cross-objections are being disposed of by this common judgment. 9. The main contention of Mr. Fadnis the learned counsel for the appellant was that the learned District Judge exercising powers under the Lunacy Act had no jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to title to property, and should have directed Rukminibai to a Civil Court instead of returning the ornaments to her. 10. In my opinion there is not much force in this contention. Under S. 67 of the Act the District Judge on coming to a finding that the lunatic was incapable of managing his affairs, is empowered to appoint a manager and to entrust him for management, the estate of the lunatic. Prima facie therefore he can at this stage take possession of and deal only with such property as is undisputed property of the lunatic and the Court will have no jurisdiction to take possession of property regarding which there is a genuine dispute. 11. In the present case there is no doubt that Rukminibai was claiming the property in the safe as her property and as the keys of the safe were with her, she was prima facie in possession. The Court took the further precaution of recording Rukminibais statement on oath restoring only such of the ornaments and articles as appeared to belong to Rukminibai and her daughter Gulabbai. Under the circumstances I do not think the trial Court exercised in this case, jurisdiction that was not vested in it. The Court took the further precaution of recording Rukminibais statement on oath restoring only such of the ornaments and articles as appeared to belong to Rukminibai and her daughter Gulabbai. Under the circumstances I do not think the trial Court exercised in this case, jurisdiction that was not vested in it. Aggrieved parties can, if so advised have their claims thrashed out in a competent civil Court. There is no force in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed. 12. Rukminibai has preferred cross-objections. The principal contention put forward on her behalf was that all the houses and property were in her possession and should have been restored to her. Particular emphasis was laid on the fact that rent of the houses was being recovered by Rukminibai from the tenants. 13. No rent notes are produced in Court by the respondent No. 1 in support of this claim. The property belonged to the family firm Chintaman and the proprietor was Rajmal alone. Under the circumstances, if his mother recovered some rent from the tenants, it cannot be said that the property is in her exclusive possession. 14. The trial Court has not given to the Manager property which prima facie appeared to be respondents Stridhan and in this it has acted fairly. 15. It was then urged that the amount of Rs. 75 which was being paid to Rukminibai should be increased. The amount payable by way of maintenance is determined on taking into account the position of the family and the income yielded by the family property. We have not got before us a full picture of the case for this point of view and we are not in a position to say that the allowance of Rs. 75 per month is insufficient. I think that the proper remedy for the parties is to approach the District Judge himself. 16. The Cross-objections are therefore dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. 17. NEVASKAR, J. :- I agree.