SHRIMATI SHANTABAI versus STATE OF BOMBAY & OTHERS

SHRIMATI SHANTABAI versus STATE OF BOMBAY & OTHERS

Regardless of the construction of the document, the petitioner has no enforceable fundamental right since: (1) If it conveyed an interest in immovable property, it was ineffective for want of registration and such interest, if any, has vested in the State by statute; (2) If it was a profits-a-prendre or a license, it was similarly compulsorily registrable, and in its absence no interest passes; (3) If it is a contract conferring a personal right, it is not enforceable as a fundamental right against the State, which was not a party to the contract and has not acquired the contract or taken possession of it; the correct remedy lies in regular suit for compensation, not under Article 32.

Parties
Petitioner: Shrimati Shantabai; Respondents: State of Bombay & Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 March 1958
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Article 32 for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights / Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights, Enforcement of Proprietary Rights, Validity of Unregistered Documents, Licenses and Grants, Abolition of Proprietary Rights, Nature of Immovable/movable Property
Constitutional Law Property Law Fundamental Rights Enforcement of Proprietary Rights Validity of Unregistered Documents Licenses and Grants Abolition of Proprietary Rights Nature of Immovable/movable Property

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shrimati Shantabai

Petitioner

State of Bombay & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights / Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner's fundamental rights under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) are infringed by the order of the forest officer and subsequent acts of the State.
  2. 2 Whether rights claimed by the petitioner based on an unregistered document can be enforced after the vesting of proprietary interests in the State under subsequent legislation.
  3. 3 Whether the rights granted under the alleged 'lease' or document amounted to an interest in immovable property or contractual rights only.

Ratio Decidendi

Regardless of the construction of the document, the petitioner has no enforceable fundamental right since: (1) If it conveyed an interest in immovable property, it was ineffective for want of registration and such interest, if any, has vested in the State by statute; (2) If it was a profits-a-prendre or a license, it was similarly compulsorily registrable, and in its absence no interest passes; (3) If it is a contract conferring a personal right, it is not enforceable as a fundamental right against the State, which was not a party to the contract and has not acquired the contract or taken possession of it; the correct remedy lies in regular suit for compensation, not under Article 32.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Petition under Article 32 is dismissed with costs; no enforceable fundamental right found under Articles 19(1)(f) or 19(1)(g).