Kanwar Budh Singh Vs. Sahebzada Mohd. Yaseen - Court Judgment
|Court||Rajasthan High Court|
|Case Number||Civil Ref. No. 25 of 1956|
|Judge|| Bapna and; Sharma, JJ.|
|Acts||Constitution of India - Article 14|
|Appellant||Kanwar Budh Singh|
|Respondent||Sahebzada Mohd. Yaseen|
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect -..........was filed against mohammad yaseen khan, son of the original judgment-debtor, on 1-2-1952. the decree-holder prayed for attachment of the house of the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree. an objection was raised on behalf of mo-hammad yaseen khan that he belonged to the royal family of tonk, and that his house was exempt from attachment under notification dated 25-11-34 published in the gazette of 1-12-34 of the former tonk state. the executing court allowed the objection. the decree-holder filed an appeal against the judgment of the civil judge, tonk, dated 26-11-1952. the decree-holder died in the meanwhile and his legal representatives were broughton record. it was urged on behalf of the decree-holder that the notification referred to by the judgment-debtor was no longer in.....
1. This is a reference by the learned District Judge. Jaipur City.
2. Dewan Bahadur Kesri Singh obtained a money decree for Rs. 4254/- against one Hamir Khan on 22-9-1941. The last application for execution was filed against Mohammad Yaseen Khan, son of the original judgment-debtor, on 1-2-1952. The decree-holder prayed for attachment of the house of the judgment-debtor in execution of the decree. An objection was raised on behalf of Mo-hammad Yaseen Khan that he belonged to the royal family of Tonk, and that his house was exempt from attachment under notification dated 25-11-34 published in the Gazette of 1-12-34 of the former Tonk State. The executing court allowed the objection. The decree-holder filed an appeal against the judgment of the Civil Judge, Tonk, dated 26-11-1952. The decree-holder died in the meanwhile and his legal representatives were broughton record. It was urged on behalf of the decree-holder that the notification referred to by the judgment-debtor was no longer in force, as it offendedArticles 13 and 14 of the Constitution. The learned District Judge was of opinion that the conten- tion raised by the decree-holder was correct, andhe has made this reference under Section 113 of theCode of Civil Procedure.
3. The reference is correct. Article 14 of the Constitution provides that--
'The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.'
The notification of the firmer Ruler of Tonk creates discrimination, which is not based on a reasonable classification. The notification dated 25-11-1934. which is published in the Tonk State Gazetteof 1-12-1934. is declared invalid. The file will go back to the District Judge for further proceedings according to law.