GULAB BAI AND ANR. versus PUNIYA

GULAB BAI AND ANR. versus PUNIYA

Section 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, does not bar exercise of appellate jurisdiction under clause 18(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance over a single judge's decision in appeal under section 47; thus, the appeal before the Division Bench is competent.

Parties
Appellant: Gulab Bai; Appellant: Onkar Lal; Respondent: Puniya
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 October 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Division Bench Order Dismissing Appeal Against Single Judge Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Guardianship, Appeals, Jurisdiction
Family Law Civil Procedure Guardianship Appeals Jurisdiction

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gulab Bai

Appellant

Onkar Lal

Appellant

Puniya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Division Bench Order Dismissing Appeal Against Single Judge Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appeal to the Division Bench under clause 18(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is competent in proceedings under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
  2. 2 Interpretation of sections 47 and 48 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in context of appeals

Ratio Decidendi

Section 48 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, does not bar exercise of appellate jurisdiction under clause 18(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance over a single judge's decision in appeal under section 47; thus, the appeal before the Division Bench is competent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court dismissing the appeal as incompetent is set aside.
  • Appeal remitted to High Court for disposal in accordance with law.