SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(All) 106

BIND BASNI PRASAD, GURTU
A. CRACKNELL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Brij Lal Gupta, GOPALJI MEHROTRA

BIND BASNI PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Mrs. A. Cracknell directed against the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Collector of Meerut and the Court of Wards arising under the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of what was formerly known as Dasna estate comprising of about twenty three thousand bighas in the district of Meerut spread over nine villages. Her complaint is that

"without any notice, warning or any opportunity to show cause, and without any hearing or any reference of any kind whatsoever to the petitioner, the Court of Wards, at the instance of the collector, Meerut, assumed superintendence of her estate on the morning of 5th September, 1951. "

The notification dated 10-9-1951 published in the U. P. Gazette dated 15-9-1951 in Part I-A at page 601 shows that the superintendence of the estate has been taken over under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 8, U. P. Court of Wards Act, 1912. The petitioners suggestion is that her mother Mrs. A Coppinger is against her, as she wanted the petitioner to be her "unpaid companion, house-keeper and manager" and was opposed to the petitioners marriage to anyo



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top