P&H HC Directs SSP to Respond on Serious Allegation of Custodial Violence by Punjab Police  ||  SC: Market Value of Acquired Land Must be Determined From the Date of Issuance of S. 11 Notification  ||  SC: Hospital Vicariously Liable for Doctor’s Negligence  ||  SC: After Bar Council term Ends, Muslim Member Appointed on that Ground Can't Remain on Waqf Board  ||  SC: Compensation must be Directly Transferred to Road Accident Victims and Workmen  ||  SC: HCs Must Ensure S. 313 CrPC (S.351 BNSS) Compliance at Earliest To Avoid Acquittals  ||  SC Stays Delhi HC’s Direction to Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. to pay PPL as Per Tariff of RMPL  ||  IP Office Declares Starbucks, NDTV and Economic Times as Well-Known Trademark  ||  IP Office Declares Starbucks, NDTV and Economic Times as Well-Known Trademark  ||  Allahabad HC: Liking a Post Does Not Amount to Publishing or Transmitting it    

Gulab Bai and Anr. v. Puniya - (Supreme Court) (07 Oct 1965)

Supreme Court clears confusions about infant Rajasthan High Court’s competence

MANU/SC/0017/1965

Civil

Fifty years ago the Supreme Court faced the unique dilemma of telling a still ‘young’ Rajasthan High Court to become besotted with its appellate authority: probably not the kind of advice it would give today. It held that a decision of the trial court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is final, unless it is appealed under Section 47 of the Act; similarly, an order passed by a Single judge of the High Court, on appeal from the trial court, is also final, subject to the Division Bench determining its jurisdiction, which it was essentially told to not question so much. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for disposal, determining that in a back and forth of decisions and appeals, each finding contrary to the last, the matter needed perhaps a more just finality. The order must have come as more than just a little relief to the little-mentioned ‘ward’ who had been bounced around between the Respondent ‘real’ parents and the Appellant foster parents who had looked after her for many years. With underlying notes of caste, it was the higher caste Respondents who had placed their daughter in the custody of the lower caste Appellants to “save the child” from whatever misfortune caused the Respondents to lose “some children in their infancy”.

Relevant : Union of India (UOI) vs. Mohindra Supply Company MANU/SC/0004/1961 L. Ram Sarup vs. Mt. Kaniz Ummehani MANU/UP/0056/1936

Tags : HIGH COURT   APPEAL   FINALITY   RAJASTHAN  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved