Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment  ||  SC: Later Sanction Requirement Won’t Invalidate Cognizance Taken When No Prior Bar Existed  ||  SC: Documents Not Admitted by an Employee in an Enquiry Must be Proved Through Witnesses  ||  Delhi HC: MHA Has Authority to Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against AGMUT IAS Officers  ||  MP HC: Financial Hardship or Mere Allegations of Lawyer’s Negligence Cannot Excuse Delayed Appeal  ||  Patna HC: Blanket Approach of Denying Public Employment to Individuals Named in an FIR is Unfair  ||  Kerala HC: Repeated Possession of Even Small Quantities of Narcotic Drugs Can Invoke KAAPA  ||  Calcutta HC: Employers May Deduct Penal Rent From Gratuity of Employees Refusing to Vacate Quarters  ||  Calcutta High Court: ECI Not Singling Out Bengal, More Transfers in Other Poll-Bound States    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved