Ramabai Vs. Harnabai

hindu law--adoption--inheritance--leprosy as a disqualification.;leprosy, to disqualify from inheritance under hindu law, must be ciharactt-rised by deformity and unfltness for social intercourse arising from the virulent and disgusting nature of the disease.;kayarohana pathan v. sublaraya thevan (1913) i.l.r. 38 mad. 250; mohunt bhagalan ramannj das v. mohunt royhunundun ramanuj das (1895) l.r. 22 i.a. 94; and janardhan pandurang v. gopal (1868) 5 b.h.c.b. (a.c.j.) 145, followed. - 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. - 5. in these circumstances, the law of the case is attacked by appellant's counsel, but the law of the case may be stated to have been well settled in india for very many years, in the case of kayarohana pathan v......a valid adoption of a son. his natural son had died, and the adoption was made a few weeks before his death. had narayan not been a leper, this natural and proper act could not have been challenged.4. in the opinion of the board, no question of fact arises on this appeal. it appears to be definitely concluded by both of the courts below, which both concur in their findings. the high court in terms expresses approval of the decision of the court of first instance; and the decision of the court of first instance is to the effect that narayan mawal was not so crippled or disabled by bodily informity or deformity as to cease to be a useful member of society, capable of holding and enjoying property. their findings show that, although he was afflicted with a certain type of leprosy, it was a type not very apparent except to minute inspection, and certainly a type which did not unfit him for performing both social and religious duties in company with others.5. in these circumstances, the law of the case is attacked by appellant's counsel, but the law of the case may be stated to have been well settled in india for very many years, in the case of kayarohana pathan v. subbaraya thevan i.l.r. (1913) mad. 250 a joint judgment of benson and sundara ayyar jj. concludes with the following proposition:--deformity find unfitness for social intercourse arising from the virulent and disgusting nature of the disease would appear to be what has been accepted in both the texts and the decisions as the most satisfactory test. 6. in the case of mohunt bhagaban ramanuj das v. mohunt raghunundun ramanuj das sir richard couch delivered a judgment of this board which substantially agreed with that test. sir richard couch was already deeply committed on the subject, for, so far back as the year 1868, in the case of janardhan pandurang v. gopal (1868) 5 b.h.c. 145 he had expressed himself in nearly similar terms.7. the result is that their lordships will humbly advise his majesty that.....