Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 729 of 1964. Appeal by special leave from the order dated February 1964 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1963. O. P. Varma	 for the appellants. Mohan Behari Lal	 for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendradkar	 C.J. This appeal by special leave arises from an application made by the respondent Puniya in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Jhalawar under section 25 of the (No. 8 of 1890) (hereinafter called 'the Act ')	 for the custody of his daughter Mt. Chitra. To this application	 the 103 respondent had impleaded the two appellants	 Gulab Bai and her	 husband Onkar Lal. The respondent is a Kumhar by caste	 whereas the appellants are fat. The respondent 's case was that the minor Chitra who was about 11 years of age at the date of the application	 had been living with the appellants for the last 4 or 5 years with his consent. Whilst the minor girl was living with the appellants	 she used to come to spend some time with the respondent and his wife; but for some time past	 the appellants did not allow Chitra to visit her parents. That is why the respondent thought it necessary to move the Court for an order under section 25 of the Act. The claim thus made by the respondent was disputed by the appellants. They alleged that the respondent and his wife had lost some children in their infancy	 and so	 they decided to leave the minor in the custody of the appellants	 in the hope that their custody would save the child. Accordingly	 the minor was entrusted to the appellants a few hours after her birth and in fact	 she was given away by the respondent and his wife to the appellants to be looked after as if she was their adopted child. During all these years	 the appellants have looked after the minor as their own child	 have taken fond care of her	 and have looked after her education. The appellants. and the respondent and his wife are neighbours	 and the appellants denied the allegation made by the respondent that they ever obstructed the minor from visiting her parents. According to the appellants	 recently an unfortunate incident had taken place between appellant No. 1 and the wife of the respondent and that was the real cause of the present application. They pleaded that as a result of the ugly incident that took place between the two ladies	 the minor was frightened and appeared to be disinclined to visit her parents any longer. On these pleadings	 the parties led evidence to support their respective contentions. The learned trial Judge held that the child had been entrusted to the appellants soon after she was born	 and that she was looked after by the appellants as if she was their daughter. He felt satisfied that in case the child was removed from the homely atmosphere which she enjoyed in the house of the appellants	 that would definitely be detrimental to her welfare and would also affect her health	 because she had come to look upon the appellants as her parents. The learned trial Judge examined the child in order to ascertain her own wishes	 because he thought that she had attained the age of discretion and could express her wishes intelligently. He was convinced that the child definitely preferred to stay with the appellants. Having come to the conclusion that it would be inconsistent with the interests of the child to allow the application made by the respondent	 the learned Judge ordered that 104 appellant No. 2 should be appointed the guardian of the person of the minor under sections 7 and 8 of the Act. He directed that the said Guardian shall give an undertaking to the. Court not to remove the child from the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and not to marry her without the permission of the Court. A direction was also issued that the child shall not	 of course	 be married outside her caste without the consent of her parents even if she so desires. Against this order	 the respondent preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court. This appeal was heard by a learned single Judge of the said High Court who reversed the decision of the trial Judge. He came to the conclusion that it would be in the interests of the minor to deliver her to the custody of the respondent and his wife. He held that under section 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act	 1958	 the respondent was entitled to be the guardian of his daughter in the absence of any allegation or proof that he was in any way unsuitable to be such a guardian. The learned single Judge also took into account the fact that the appellants and the respondent belonged to different castes. and he held that since the minor was then about 12 years of age	 it was in her interest that she went back to be looked after by her own parents. ion this view	 the learned single Judge set aside the order passed by the learned trial Judge by which appellant No. 2 was appointed the guardian of the minor and directed him to deliver the minor to the custody of the respondent. The order passed by the learned Judge further provided that if the appellants did not deliver the minor Chitra to her parents on the expiry of three months	 the respondent shall apply for execution of the order and that it would be executed as a decree under section 25 (2) of the Act by issue of a warrant under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Against this decision	 the appellants preferred an appeal under clause 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance	 1949 (No. 15 of 1949) (hereafter called 'the Ordinance '). This appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that the appeal was incompetent having regard to the provisions of sections 47 and 48 of the Act. The appellants then moved the High Court for certificate to prefer an appeal to this Court	 but the said application was dismissed. That is how the appellants applied for and obtained special leave from this Court	 and it is with the said leave that this appeal has come before us. The short question of law which arises for our decision is whether the High Court was right in holding that the appeal under clause 18 (1) of the Ordinance was incompetent and that raises the question about the construction of sections 47 and 48 of the Act. 105 Before dealing with this point	 two relevant facts ought to be mentioned. The Act was extended to Rajasthan by the Part B States (Laws) Act	 1951 (Act III of 1951) on the 23rd February; 1951; but before the Act was thus extended to Rajasthan	 the Ordinance had already been promulgated. Clause 18(1) of the Ordinance provides	 inter alia	 that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the judgment of one Judge of the High Court; it excepts from the purview of this provision certain other judgments with which we are not concerned. It is common ground that the judgment pronounced by the learned single Judge of the High Court on the appeal preferred by the respondent before the High Court	 does not fall within the category of the exceptions provided by clause 1 8 ( 1 ) of the ordinance; so that if the question about the competence of the appeal preferred by the appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court had fallen to be considered solely by reference to clause 18(1)	 the answer to the point raised by the appellants before us would have to be given in their favour. The High Court has	 however	 held that the result of reading sections 47 and 48 together is to make the present appeal under clause 18(1) of the Ordinance incompetent. The question which arises before us is : is this view of the High Court right ? Section 47 of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order made by a Court under sections specified in clauses (a) to (j) thereof. Clause (c) of the said section refers to an appeal against. an order made under section 25	 making or refusing to make an order for the return of a ward to the custody of his guardian. It is thus clear that the order passed by the learned trial Judge in the present proceedings was an order under section 25 of the Act	 and as such	 is appealable under section 47; and when as a result of the rules framed by the Rajasthan High Court the present appeal was placed before a learned single Judge of the said High Court for hearing and was decided by him	 his decision became appealable to a Division Bench of the said High Court under cl. 1 8 (1 ) of the Ordinance. Thus far	 there is no difficulty or doubt. But the High Court has held that section 48 of the Act	 in substance	 amounts to a prohibition against an appeal to a Division Bench under cl. 18(1) of the Ordinance; and that makes it necessary to examine the provisions of section 48 carefully. Section 48 reads thus "Save as provided by the last foregoing section and by section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure	 an order made under this Act I shall be final	 and shall not be liable to be contested by suit or otherwise. " 106 It is clear that what is made final by section 48 is an order made under this Act; and the context shows that it is an order made by the trial Court under one or the other provision of the Act. This position is made perfectly clear if the first part of section 48 is examined. The finality prescribed for the order made under this Act is subject to the provisions of section 47 and section 622 of the earlier Code which corresponds to section 115 of the present Code. In other words	 the saving clause unambiguously means that an order passed by the trial Court shall be final	 except in cases where an appeal is taken against the said order under section 47 of the Act	 or the propriety	 validity	 or legality of the said order is challenged by a revision application preferred under section II 5 of the Code. It is	 therefore	 essential to bear in mind that the scope and purpose of 'section 48 is to make the orders passed by the trial Court under the relevant provisions of the Act final	 subject to the result of the appeals which may be preferred against them	 or subject to the result of the revision applications which may be filed against them. In other words	 an order passed on appeal under section 47 of the Act	 or an order passed in revision under section II 5 of the Code	 are	 strictly speaking	 outside the purview of the finality prescribed for the orders passed under the Act	 plainly because they would be final by themselves without any such provision	 subject	 of course	 to any appeal provided by law or by a constitutional pro vision	 as for instance	 article 136. The construction of section 48	 therefore	 is that it attaches finality to the orders passed by the trial Court subject to the provisions prescribed by section 47 of the Act	 and section 115 of the Code. That is one aspect of the matter which is material. The other aspect of the matter which is equally material is that the provisions of section 47 are expressly saved by section 48	 and that means that section 47 will work out in an ordinary way without any restriction imposed by	 section 48. In considering the question as to whether a judgment pronounced by a single Judge in an appeal preferred before the High Court against one or the other of the orders which are made appealable by section 47 will be subject to an appeal under clause 1 8 (1) of the Ordinance	 section 48 will have no restrictive impact. The competence of an appeal before the Division Bench will have to be judged by the provisions of cl. 18 itself. Section 48 saves the provisions of section 47	 and as we have already indicated	 considered by themselves the provisions of section 47 undoubtedly do not create any bar against the competence of an appeal under cl. 18(1) of the Ordinance where the appeal permitted by section 47 is heard by a learned single Judge of the High Court. Therefore	 we are satisfied that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that an appeal before a Division Bench of the said High Court under clause 18 (1) of the Ordinance was incompetent. 107 It is true that in upholding the respondent 's plea that the appeal preferred by the appellants under clause 18(1) of the Ordinance was incompetent	 the High Court has no doubt purported to rely upon and apply its earlier decision in the case of Temple of Shri Bankteshwar Balai Through Rampal vs The Collector	 Ajmer(1). The said decision	 however	 was concerned with the effect of the provisions prescribed by section 66(3) of the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediaries and Land Reforms Act (No. III of 1955) in relation to clause 18 of the Ordinance	 and since we are not called upon to consider the correctness of the conclusion reached in that behalf	 it is unnecessary for us to examine whether the High Court was right in holding that the provisions of the said section 66(3) created a bar against the competence of the appeal under cl. 18(1) of the Ordinance. All that we are concerned to deal with in the present appeal is the effect of section 48 of the Act	 and in our opinion	 the High Court was in error in holding that section 48 excluded the application of clause 1 8 (1) of the Ordinance to the decision of the learned single Judge in the present proceedings. In this connection	 we may incidentally refer to the decision of this Court in Union of India vs Mohindra Supply Company(1). In that case	 this Court has held that an appeal against the appellate order of the single Judge was barred under section 39(2) of the Indian 	 because the expression "second appeal" in section 39(2) means a further appeal from an order passed in appeal under section 39 (1) and not an appeal under section 100 of the Code	 and as such	 the said expression "second appeal" includes an appeal under the Letters Patent. In substance. the effect of the decision of this Court in the case of Mohindra Supply Co.(2) is that by enacting section 39(2) the has prohibited an appeal under the Letters Patent against an order passed under section 39 (1). This decision again turned upon the specific words used it section 39(1) & (2) of the and is not of any assistance in interpreting the provisions of section 48 of the Act with which. we are concerned in the present proceedings. The question a		 to whether an appeal permitted by the relevant clause of the Letters Patent of a High Court can be taken away by implication	 had been considered in relation to the provisions of section 588 of the Codes of Civil Procedure of 1877 and 1882. The first part of the said section had provided for an appeal from the orders specified by clauses (1) to (29) thereof	 and the latter part of the said section had laid down that the orders passed in appeals under this section shall be final. Before the enactment of (1) LL.R. (2) ; Sup CI/66 8 108 the present Code	 High Courts in India had occasion to consider whether the provision as to the finality of the appellate orders prescribed by section 588 precluded an appeal under the relevant clauses of the Letters Patent of different High Courts. There was a conflict of decisions on this point. When the matter was raised before the Privy Council in Harrish Chunder Chowdhry vs Kali Sundari Debia(1)	 the Privy Council thus tersely expressed its conclusion: "It only remains to observe that their Lordships do not think that section 588 of Act X of 1877	 which has the effect of restricting certain appeals	 applies to such a case as this	 where the appeal is from one of the Judges of the Court to the Full Court". Basing themselves on these observations	 the High Courts of Calcutta	 Madras	 and Bombay had held that section 588 did not take away the right of appeal given by clause 15 of the Letters Patent	 vide Toolsee Money Dassee & Others vs Sudevi Dassee & Others(2)	 Sabhapathi Chetti & Others vs Narayanasami Chetti(3)	 and The Secretary of State for India in Council vs Jehangir Maneckji Cursetji (4 ) respectively. On the other hand	 the Allahabad High Court took a different view	 vide Banno Bibi and others vs Mehdi Husain and Others(5)	 and Muhammad Naim ul Lah Khan vs Ihsan Ullah Khan(6). Ultimately	 when the present Code was enacted	 section 104 took the place of section 588 of the earlier Code. Section 104(1) provides that an appeal shall lie from the following orders	 and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force	 from no other orders. It will be noticed that the saving clause which refers to the provisions of the Code	 or to the provi sions of an law for the time being in force	 gives effect to the view taken by the Calcutta	 Madras and Bombay High Courts. In fact	 later	 the Allahabad High Court itself has accepted the same view in L. Ram Sarup vs Mt. Kaniz Ummehani (7 ). We have referred to these decisions to emphasise the fact that even where the relevant provision of section 5 8 8 of the earlier Code made certain appellate orders final	 the consensus of judicial opinion was that the said provision did not preclude an appeal being filed under the relevant clause of the Letters Patent of the High Court. In the present case	 as we have already indicated	 section 48 in terms saves the provisions of section 47 of the Act as well as those of section 115 of the (1) 10 I.A. 4 at p. 17. (2) (3) (1902))5 Mad. (4) (5) (1889) 11 Alld. (6) (1892) 14 AIId. 226 (F.P.) (7) A.I.R. 1937 Alld. 109 Code	 and that gives full scope to an appeal under clause 18 of the Ordinance which would be competent when we deal with the question about appeals under section 47 of the Act considered by itself. The result is	 the appeal is allowed	 the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants under cl. 18(1) of the Ordinance on the ground that it is incompetent	 is set aside	 and the said appeal is remitted to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law. In view of the unusual circumstances of this case	 we direct that parties should bear their own costs incurred so far.

The respondent 's application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of respondent 's daughter was rejected by the Civil Judge. When the decision was reversed in appeal by a single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court	 the appellants preferred an appeal to the Division Bench under cl. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. This was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was incompetent having regard to sq. 47 and 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act. In appeal to this Court	 HELD:The appeal before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court under cl. 18(1) of the Ordinance was competent. [106 H] The competence of an appeal before the Division Bench will have to be judged by the provisions of cl. 18 of the Ordinance itself and section 48 of the Act has no restrictive impact. Section 48 saves the provisions of section 47 of the Act and section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and considered by themselves the provisions of section 47 do not create any bar against the competence of an appeal under cl. 18(1) of the Ordinance where the appeal permitted by section 47 is heard by a single Judge. [106 G] Section 48 attaches finality to the order passed by the trial Court subject to the provisions prescribed by section 47 of the Act and section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. [106 E]