Nirvanaya Vs. Nirvanaya

guardian - minor--lingayat math--compromise made by a father as guardian of his natural son--suit by son to set aside compromise--minor adopted by religious celebate. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. charles sargent, c.j.1. in the present case the plaintiff disputes the validity of a compromise, dated the 26th may, 1863, entered into in his behalf, when a minor, by his natural further, on the ground that his father had no authority to make it, and, further, that there was no necessity for it. it appears that the compromise arose out of the rival claims made on behalf of the plaintiff and the fourth defendant by their respective fathers to be the heir of one chanmalaya svami, a virakt, or religious celebate. both the courts below have found that the compromise, having for its object to put an end to litigation, was, under the circumstances, for the benefit of the plaintiff; but the district judge held that, as the plaintiff had been adopted by chanmalaya, his natural father, who had not obtained certificate of guardianship, had no authority to enter into the agreement of compromise; and he added that the policy of hindus was opposed to a divided math. the fourth defendant now appeals, and no cross objection has been filed.2. as to the last observation of the district judge, it is sufficient to say that it is not the object of the present suit to impeach the compromise as opposed to the usage and custom of maths in general, or this math in particular. as to the authority of the father to enter into the compromise, we think that whoever might be the guardian of a minor who has been adopted by a religious celebate, in matters relating to the math, the natural father would be his proper guardian to assert his rights to be such adopted heir as against rival claimants.3. we must, therefore, reverse the decree of the district judge, and restore that of the subordinate judge, with costs on plaintiff throughout.