Skip to content


Assur Purshotam Vs. Ratanbai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1889)ILR13Bom56
AppellantAssur Purshotam
RespondentRatanbai
Excerpt:
adoption - injunction to restrain adoption--interim injunction--practice. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of.....jardine, j.1. the plaint was filed to-day, and the interim injunction asked for is to restrain an adoption which, it is alleged, is to take place tomorrow. the injury apprehended is that, if the defendant adopts, in breach of her covenant with the plaintiff, the adopted son, having acquired that status, will acquire rights in the family property, and so the intention of the contract will be defeated. no case of an injunction to restrain an adoption hag been shown me, and after consulting my colleague, mr. justice bayley, whose experience is very great, i find he knows of no such case. the serious results, which among hindus may occur from the prevention of an adoption, ought to incline the court to proceed with caution. there is no time to hear what the defendant has to say, and the.....
Judgment:

Jardine, J.

1. The plaint was filed to-day, and the interim injunction asked for is to restrain an adoption which, it is alleged, is to take place tomorrow. The injury apprehended is that, if the defendant adopts, in breach of her covenant with the plaintiff, the adopted son, having acquired that status, will acquire rights in the family property, and so the intention of the contract will be defeated. No case of an injunction to restrain an adoption hag been shown me, and after consulting my colleague, Mr. Justice Bayley, whose experience is very great, I find he knows of no such case. The serious results, which among Hindus may occur from the prevention of an adoption, ought to incline the Court to proceed with caution. There is no time to hear what the defendant has to say, and the affidavit does not account for the plaint and motion not being made till this day, Saturday. I am of opinion that cause for the delay should have appeared on the affidavit. Following Lord Eldon's decision in Christie v. Craig 2 Mer. 137, K on Injunction (2nd ed.) Chap. 21 537, I do not think it right, at the time fixed for disposal, to allow fresh affidavits. I, therefore, refuse an interim injunction, but, if asked, will grant a rule nisi.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //