http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SAHIBZADA SAIYED MUHAMMEDAMIRABBAS ABBASSI & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT& OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/02/1960

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) IMAM, SYED JAFFER SARKAR, A.K. WANCHOO, K.N.

CITATION:  1960 AIR  768            1960 SCR  (3) 138  CITATOR INFO :  APL        1962 SC1616  (4,6)  RF         1981 SC2189  (21)

ACT:        Personal Law-Right to Guardianship-If can be enforced by way        of constitutional remedy-Constitution of India, Art. 32.

HEADNOTE: The  first  petitioner, who had migrated to  West  Pakistan, applied  to  the High Court of Madhya Bharat for a  writ  of abeas corpus for directions to produce petitioners 2 and  3, his minor children, before the Court on the allegation  that they were wrongfully confined and, upon the dismissal of the said  application, applied to the District Judge  of  Ratlam under  the  Guardian and Wards Act for  his  appointment  as guardian of the person and property of the said minors.  The District  judge  rejected he application and  appointed  the second  respondent as such Guardian.  The  first  petitioner appealed  to  the High Court against the said order  of  the District  judge but that appeal was Dismissed.   He  applied for  special  leave  to  appeal  to  this  Court  but   that application   was  also  rejected.   Thereafter  the   first Petitioner,  as  natural guardian of petitioners  2  and  3, filed   the   present  petition  under  Art.   32   of   the Constitution.  His casee in substance was that the  interest of the second respondent was adverse to that of the  minors, that  he  had misappropriated their property  and  that  the first  respondent, the State of Madhya Bharat, was bound  to take  steps to protect the property of the minors  which  it had failed to do and had thus rendered itself liable to make good the loss sustained by the minors in consequence. Held, that the petition was wholly misconceived, and must be dismissed. The  Court  can exercise jurisdiction under Art. 32  of  the Constitution  only in enforcement of the fundamental  rights guaranteed  by  Part  III of  the  Constitution.   Where  on account   of   the  decision  of  a   court   of   competent jurisdiction,  the right alleged by the petitioner does  not exist  and  therefore its infringement  cannot  arise,  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Court  cannot  entertain a petition under that  Article  for protection of the alleged right. A claim as to denial of equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws can be made against executive  action or against legislative process but not against the  decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. Nor can an order of this Court rejecting an application  for special  leave  under  Art.  136  of  the  Constitution   be circumvented by an application for a writ under Art. 32. 139

JUDGMENT:        ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 217 of 1956.        Petition  under Article 32 of the Constitution of India  for        enforcement of Fundamental rights.        Pandit Nanak Chand, for the petitioners.        I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1.        1960 February, 26.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered        by        SHAH,  J.-This  -is  a petition filed  by  Sahibzada  Saiyed        Muhammed Amirabbas Abbasi, who will hereinafter be  referred        to  as the first petitioner on behalf of himself and as  the        natural guardian of his two minor children, Kamal Abbas  and        Jehanzeb Bano, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 against the State of        Madhya  Bharat (now the State of Madhya Pradesh)  and  three        other respondents for an appropriate writ or writs of Habeas        Corpus,  Mandamus,  Certiorari, Prohibition  and  any  other        writ,  direction  or  order directing the  State  of  Madhya        Bharat immediately to assume charge of the properties of the        minor petitioners 2 and 3 and determining the amount of loss        sustained by the minors and calling upon the State of Madhya        Bharat  and the other respondents to compensate  the  minors        for  the  full  value  of the property  lost  due  to  their        negligence  in the discharge of their respective  duties  in        failing to protect the minors’ properties, and calling  upon        the  4th respondent to produce the minors before this  court        and directing that the minors be handed over to the  custody        of some relation who is competent under the Personal Law  to        have their custody, and calling upon the Chief Secretary  of        the  State of Madhya Bharat to furnish full  particulars  of        the trust property released in favour of the 2nd  respondent        and  directing the 1st respondent to produce in  this  court        the  box of jewellery entrusted to it with full  particulars        regarding its custody from March 29, 1948, and  ascertaining        whether the contents have ’been misappropriated and  further        ascertaining  the  loss,  if any, occasioned  to  the  minor        petitioners  and its quantum and declaring liability of  the        respondents in that behalf and for further relief which  the        court  may award in the circumstances of the case,  as  just        and proper.        140        Prima facie, the reliefs claimed ate not within the scope of        a  petition  for a writ under Art. 32 of  the  Constitution.        This court has power under that Article to issue directions,        orders  or  writs, including writs in the nature  of  habeas        corpus,  mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and  certiorari        whichever  may be appropriate for the enforcement of any  of        the  fundamental  rights; but by this  petition,  the  first        petitioner  claims  on  the plea that  the  respodents  have        misappropriated or misapplied the property of petitioners  2        and 3, a writ or writs directing that loss sustained by  the        minors be ascertained and made good and also asks this court        to provide for the custody of the minors according to  their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

      Personal Law.        The facts which give rise to the petition are these:        The first petitioner married in 1940 one Naiyar Jahan  Begam        and  by her he had two children petitioners 2 and 3.  Naiyar        Jahan  Begam died in the year 1943 and petitioners 2  and  3        were  thereafter  looked  after by  Musharraf  Jahan  Begam,        mother of Naiyar Jahan Begam.  From her father Naiyar  Jahan        Begam  had inherited certain valuable property and from  her        mother,  Musharraf Jahan Begam, she had received a dowry  of        substantial  value at the time of her marriage.  Before  she        died  on  March 6, 1949, Musharraf Jehan Begam  had  made  a        trust  in  respect  of certain property of  the  benefit  of        petitioners  2  and 3. The first petitioner  had  after  the        death of Naiyar Jehan Begam contracted a second marriage and        of that marriage there were three children.  During the life        of  Musharraf  Jehan  Begam the  first  petitioner  took  no        interest in petitioners 2 and 3 and at sometime in the  year        1948, he migrated to West Pakistan and took up residence  in        Rawalpindi.   After the death of Musharraf Jehan Begam,  the        first petitioner applied to the Madhya Bharat High Court for        a  writ  in the nature of habeas corpus for a  direction  to        produce  petitioners  2  and  3  before  the  court  on  the        allegation  that  the latter were wrong fully  detained  The        High  Court refused to give the direction and  ordered  that        the first petitioner -might, if so advised, apply under  the        Guardian  and Wards Act for appropriate relief.   The  first        petitioner then applied to the        141        court  of the District Judge at Ratlam for an order that  he        be  appointed  a  guardian of the  person  and  property  of        petitioners  2  and  3. On November  23,  1949,  the  second        respondent,  Sultan  Hamid Khan, cousin of  Musharraf  Jehan        Begam  applied that he be appointed guardian of  the  person        and  property  of  petitioners 2 and 3 and  by  order  dated        December 5, 1949, the District Court appointed him  guardian        and rejected the application filed by the first  petitioner.        Against  the  order passed by the  District  Court,  Ratlam,        Appeal No. 20 of 1950 was filed in the High Court of  Madhya        Bharat.   This appeal was dismissed on March 29,  1954.   An        application for special leave to appeal to this court  under        Act.  136 against that order of the High Court was  rejected        on November 12, 1956.        The  first petitioner had, in the meantime, applied to  this        court  under  Art. 32 of the Constitution  for  the  reliefs        which  have  already  been  set  out.   To  this   petition,        petitioners 2 and 3 were impleaded as party petitioners, the        first petitioner alleging that he was their natural guardian        and next friend.  Evidently, the first petitioner could  not        claim  to be the next friend of the minor petitioners 2  and        3,  a  guardian  of their person and  property  having  been        appointed  by the District Court, Ratlam, unless this  court        for  reasons to be recorded deemed it to be for the  welfare        of the minors that the first petitioner be permitted to  act        or be appointed as the case may be (vide 0. 32, r. 4 of  the        Code  of  Civil Procedure).  The first  petitioner  did  not        obtain any order of this court permitting him to act as  the        next friend of petitioners 2 and 3 notwithstanding the order        passed by the District Court appointing respondent No. 2  as        their guardian.        The  petition  filed by the first petitioner is  a  somewhat        prolix  document.   The first petitioner  claimed  that  the        interest  of  the  second respondent  who  was  appointed  a        guardian by the District Court was adverse to the  interests        of the minors, and that the latter was, in any event,  unfit        to  be appointed a guardian of the minors, that  the  second

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

      respondent  had misappropriated the property of  the  minors        and that he was not looking after the minors and was        142        acting  contrary to their interest and that  proceedings  in        the District Court were - vitiated on account of  partiality        and collusion’ and by reason of deliberate violation of  the        order passed by the High Court.  The petitioner also claimed        that  the State of Madhya Bharat was bound to take steps  to        protect  the entire property of the minor petitioners 2  and        3,  but the first respondent had neglected to do so and  had        thereby rendered itself liable to make good the loss.        On  these allegations, the first petitioner  submitted  that        the minor petitioners were deprived of the equal  protection        of  the  laws in force including the Personal Law  and  were        accordingly discriminated against and their property was, by        reason  of  such discrimination in serious danger  of  being        wasted or mis-appropriated.  He also submitted that he could        not  be denied his rights under the Personal  Law  governing        the minors as their natural guardian, merely because he  had        acquired a foreign domicile.        Exercising  jurisdiction under Art. 32 of the  Constitution,        this  court  may grant relief for enforcement, only  of  the        rights  conferred  by  Part III of  the  Constitution.   The        alleged right of the first petitioner to guardianship of his        minor  children  under the Personal Law is not  one  of  the        fundamental  rights guaranteed to him by  the  Constitution;        ’nor  by appointing respondent No. 2 as the guardian of  the        minors  under the Guardian and Wards Act  is  discrimination        practised  against  the minors.  The second  respondent  was        appointed  guardian  of the minors by order of  a  competent        court.  and denial of equality before the law or  the  equal        protection  of  the laws can be  claimed  against  executive        action  or legislative process but not against the  decision        of  a competent tribunal.  The remedy of a person  aggrieved        by  the  decision  of a competent judicial  tribunal  is  to        approach  for redress a superior tribunal if there  be  one.        In the present case, against the order of the District Court        appointing the second respondent the guardian of the  person        and  property of the minors, an appeal was preferred to  the        High   Court  and  that  appeal  was  dismissed.   Even   an        application  for special leave to appeal to this  court  was        rejected, and the order of the District Court        143        became  final.   If,  since  the date  on  which  the  order        appointing   the  guardian  of  the  minors,   events   have        transpired  which necessitate a modification of that  order,        the proper remedy of the first petitioner is to apply to the        District Court for relief in that behalf and not to approach        this  court  for a writ under Art. 32 of  the  Constitution.        This court has rejected the application for special leave to        appeal under Art. 136; and that order cannot be circumvented        by  resorting  to an application for a writ under  Art.  32.        Relief under Art. 32 for enforcement of a right conferred by        ch.  III can be granted only on proof of that right and  in-        fringement  thereof, and if, by the adjudication by a  court        of  competent  jurisdiction  the  right  claimed  has   been        negatived,  a  petition to this court under Art. 32  of  the        Constitution for enforcement of that right,  notwithstanding        the adjudication of the civil court, cannot be entertained.        The relief claimed by the first petitioner for assessing the        liability  of  the respondents on the plea  that  they  have        either  misappropriated the estate or by  negligence  caused        loss  to  the  estate of the minors, may be  obtained  in  a        properly  constituted suit and not in a petition under  Art.        32  of the Constitution.  The property to which  the  minors

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

      are  or may be entitled may be ascertained in  a  proceeding        under  the Guardian and Wards Act or in a suit in the  civil        court   and  not  in  a  petition  under  Art.  32  of   the        Constitution.        In  our  judgment, the petition is wholly  misconceived  and        must be dismissed with costs payable by the first petitioner        personally.        Petition dismissed.        144