JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, filed Miscellaneous Application No. 145 1984 in District Court, Jalgaon, purporting to be an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. However, it is alleged in the application, that their brother Hanumant is lunatic since birth. His father Madhav had expired. Mother also had expired. So, the only two petitioners are his near relatives. Wife of Hanumant also deserted him. It is contended that Hanumant is not able to take care of himself and he is also not able to take care of his property and, therefore, either of the petitioners be appointed as guardian for the person and property of Hanumant, the alleged lunatic. 2. The respondent in the said matter filed written statement and denied that Hanumant was lunatic since birth. Thereafter, an application was filed by the original petitioners, that Hanumant be produced before the Court and then he be sent to the Civil Surgeon, Jalgaon, for examination and report. The original respondents have denied that Hanumant was lunatic. This application was allowed by the Court on 9-12-1988. Thereafter another application was filed by the original respondents for review of the order passed on 2-1-1989. But that review application was rejected by the Court. Hence, this revision petition against the order. 3. Though the petition is styled as petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, considering the entire contentions made in the petition, it is obvious contentions made in the petition, it is obvious that this is a petition under the Indian Lunancy Act, 1912, for appointment of guardian for the person and property of the alleged lunatic. In the petition, copy of which is appended at Exhibit "A" with the civil revision application, it is clearly mentioned that the alleged lunatic Hanumant sometimes resides at Vardha and sometimes at Dadar, with respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. So, there is no statement that the alleged lunatic was residing within Jalgaon District any time before filing of the petition. Only thing is that the property in dispute is at Edlabad in Jalgaon District. 4. 1, 2 and 3. So, there is no statement that the alleged lunatic was residing within Jalgaon District any time before filing of the petition. Only thing is that the property in dispute is at Edlabad in Jalgaon District. 4. Considering the provisions of sections 37 and 62 of the Indian Lunancy Act, 1912, the petition has to be filed in the High Court at Bombay, if the alleged lunatic is residing at Dadar, that means at the presidency town, and if the lunatic is residing at Vardha, then petition has to be filed before District Court, Vardha. The jurisdiction of the Court is decided not by the place where the property is situated but by the place where the alleged lunatic is residing. The very filing of the petition in the District Court, Jalgaon, was wrong. So all further proceedings in this matter are without jurisdiction. The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 2-1-1989 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. But as the Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the application because the alleged lunatic is not residing within District Court, Jalgaon, the matter cannot be decided by District Court, Jalgaon. 5. The learned District Judge, Jalgaon, is directed to take into consideration the above observations and to pass appropriate orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 145/1984 purported to be filed under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980, but in fact under the Indian Lunancy Act, 1912. 6. With these directions, Civil Revision Application No. 198/1992 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Civil Revision Application dismissed. -----