Central Provinces Court Of Wards Act 1899 Section 20 Power For Court Of Wards To Appoint Guardians Of Certain Government Wards - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: central provinces court of wards act 1899 section 20 power for court of wards to appoint guardians of certain government wards Page 1 of about 712,082 results (0.570 seconds)Rani Annapurnabai Vs. Court of Wards Through the Collector, Nagpur and ...
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: AIR1967Bom394; (1967)69BOMLR490; 1967MhLJ450
and (c) 'land-holder' means a malguzar as defined in the Central Provinces Land-revenue Act, 1881, and the Zamindar of any Zamindari the provisions of Sections 27 and 30 of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, i.e. Act No. XXIV of 1899 appellant is a Government ward within the meaning of the Court of Wards Act can be upheld. After hearing lengthy arguments the time being, under the superintendence of the Court of Wards under the Court of Wards Act. The further argument is not fettered by any provisions of the Court of Wards Act and plaintiff's suit could not have been thrown out on the meaning of the C. P. Courts of Wards Act, 1899. If under the law she is a Government Ward then now it is the Collector of the district. Then follows sections 4 and 5. These sections are as follows:- '4. The of Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao Bhonsle after his demise on 20th Mary 1958 under section 34 (1) proviso of the C. Wards under section 6, and it is in exercise of powers under that section, read with section 9, that the State in paragraph 5 of the plaint, all parties agreed to appoint Raje Pratapsingh Rao Bhonsle as Arbitrator for making division of be brought by a Government ward except through the statutory guardians, viz. the Court of Wards. As an illustration of the indicated that his property would be taken under management on certain conditions. The Raje Bahadur Raghuji Rao then wrote a letter Government ward. As defendants Nos. 2 to 5, who are Government wards, have been sued without being represented by statutory guardian,
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTGajraj Das and anr. Vs. Kripa Sindhu Das
Court: Kolkata
Reported in: 14Ind.Cas.160
as a Court of Civil Judicature of first instance under Central Provinces Civil Courts Act, 1904.' In that case, the appeal a Court of Civil Judicature of first instance under Central Provinces Civil Courts Act, 1904.' In that case, the appeal would Civil Courts Act, 1885.'3. At that time (1889), the Civil Courts Act, 1885, was in force and under it there was in other enactments, such as the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, would be construed as referring to the Act of 1904. Court of a Deputy Commissioner but a District Court. If Sections 6 and 10 of the Act of 1585 be compared the Bengal Civil Courts Act.' And the appeal under Section 20 would not lie to the Commissioner.5. If this view is appeal from an order of a Subordinate Officer exercising the powers of a Deputy Commissioner made under Section 136-G. of the is correct and it appears to be supported to a certain extent by the decision in Raghunath Singh v. Abdhut Singh
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAmbi Pundalik and anr. Vs. Pundalik Shankar
Court: Mumbai
Reported in: (1959)61BOMLR1167
other enactments. The relevant enactment in this respect is the Central Provinces and berar Courts Act, 1917. That Act contemplates two enactments. The relevant enactment in this respect is the Central Provinces and berar Courts Act, 1917. That Act contemplates two classes Further, when a special Courts has been created as the Court having exclusive jurisdiction it is hardly necessary to put pecuniary towhich reference need be made is Section 28 of the Act, which lays own that all decrees and orders made by necessary for choosing the Court of lowest grade, because, under Section 15 Civil Procedure Code where there is concurrent jurisdiction vested of the civil judge and (ii) the district Court. Section 20 of the Act deals with the appellate jurisdiction of the Court for trial. Of course, this does not affect the power of the District Juege, as the officer presiding over the or for a divorce; (2) suits for the custody or guardianship of a minor; and (3) suits for a declaration that when a Court of exclusive jurisdiction has been created for certain proceedings under a statute. That being the case, the decrees other civil Court which may be specified by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, as having jurisdiction in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBalbhadra Vs. Bhowani
Court: Kolkata
Reported in: (1907)ILR34Cal853
erroneous interpretation put upon it by the Courts of the Central Provinces. Possession of the property may not have been given 1904).3. The district of Sambalpore was part of the Central Provinces until the 16th October 1905. It was then added by should after the 16th October 1905 be preferred to this Court.4. The question then arises 'did any appeal lie from the High Court given by Section 2(11) of the General Clauses Act of 1868, the Court of the Judicial Commissioner comes within second appeal lies in the case under the provisions of Section 15, Act II of 1904 (The Central Provinces Courts Act, October 1905. It was then added by Proclamation of the Governor-General to the Province of Bengal, and by Act VII of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTBrundaban Chandra Dhir Narendra Vs. the State of Orissa in the Revenue ...
Court: Orissa
Reported in: AIR1953Ori121
the ex-Central Provinces area, i.e., the district of Sambalpur, the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act of 1899 was in force. ex-Central Provinces area, i.e., the district of Sambalpur, the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act of 1899 was in force. To in any of the registers of revenue-paying lands.' The Orissa Court of Wards Act does not give any definition of the sentencing him to pay a fine. Before the Court of Wards can take charge of the property after declaring a person I need not add that in doing either they must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for of Sambalpur, the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act of 1899 was in force. To the rest of the Province, the should be disqualified under Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (f) of Section 10, Orissa Court of Wards Act (Act 26 of 1947).And inspected in detail by the Sub-divisional Officer, Jajpur, on the 20th and the 21st instant and he also made some further p. 533, paragraph 697 it is stated as follows: 'Statutory powers must be exercised bona fide, reasonably, and without negligence.' No Cuttack, Shri P.C. Mo-hanty in order to bring about the appointment of the said Shri N. C, Patnaik, as the Manager absence of a report from the Collector recommending that a certain proprietor should be declared to be disqualified to manage his the circumstancesof the case into consideration before makingits recommendation to Government. Ultimately,the Government, after considering all the materials, have to be
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTR. Rama Subbarayalu Reddiar Vs. Rengammal
Court: Chennai
Reported in: AIR1962Mad450
cases. Act XIV of 1926 was there-upon passed by the Central Legislature by introducing, Sec. 29 in the existing Madras Civil pro-vision in the Punjab Civil Courts Act, 1918; the Central Provinces Courts Act. 1917 and the Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869, Indian Succession Act and Sec. 29 of the Madras Civil Courts Act and that both of them cannot stand together unless delegate, whereas under Sec. 29(1) of the Madras Civil Courts Act a sub judge alone can deal with the matters specified remedied; it is also against the plain terms of the section.(9) In a recent case, S. A. No. 179 of 1959, the incorrect assumption that a subordinate judge invested with a power under the aforesaid section is a mete district delegate. It of the Madras Civil Courts Act and a district delegate appointed under S. 265 of the Indian Succession Act nor do Government under S. 388 of the Indian Succession Act can certainly co-exist with that conferred on the High Court under S. Courts Act would be to nullify the power of the Government.(12) Section 264(2) of the Indian Succession Act deals with an
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTR. Rama Subbarayalu Reddiar Vs. Rengammal
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1962)2MLJ318
in the Madras Civil Courts Act, which is also a Central enactment. It must be noticed that there was legislation in Civil Courts Act similar to those in force in other provinces, enabling the High Court by a general or special order the words of the Section 29 of the Madras Civil Courts Act. It is well-settled that the mere fact that the High Court under Section 29 of the Madras Civil Courts Act. We are therefore of opinion that Karthiruma Goundan v. Rengammal the jurisdiction of a Sub-Judge invested with a power under Section 29(1) of the Madras Civil Courts Act is that of Act intended in effect to achieve was, to confer a power on District Delegates which Section 286 of the Indian Succession of the Madras Civil Courts Act and a District Delegate appointed under Section 265 of the Indian Succession Act nor do with the Subordinate Judge. In such a case he would certainly be justified in refusing to entertain the application for probate. argument learned Counsel referred to the rule-making power of the Government under Section 264 (2) of the Indian Succession Act and
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRaja Lalitkumar Singh S/O Late Raja Chakradhar Singh Vs. State of Madh ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Reported in: AIR1961MP197
of Indian States, be the powers and functions of the Central Government.'We would therefore assume the Act to be valid except Judge, Raigarh (respondent 4), under Section 5(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899 (hereinafter called the Act), and sanction assumption of the superintendence of the estate by the Court of Wards because the petitioner is not a land-holder within of the superintendence of the estate by the Court of Wards because the petitioner is not a land-holder within the meaning petitioner is not a land-holder within the meaning of the Act or because, for other reasons, it is considered undesirable or Section 5(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899 (hereinafter called the Act), and also the two orders passed Raigarh made to the District Judge, Raigarh, an application under Section5(1)(c) of the Act for a declaration that the petitioner was introducing Section 41 in the Act which reads as follows:'The powers and functions conferred on the State Government by or under the Act unless it was determined beforehand by the appropriate Government that the petitioner was a land-holder. In our opinion, this
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTZankarsingh and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Reported in: AIR1957MP78
for the loss, if any, under Section 19(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899. The question, therefore, is the loss, if any, under Section 19(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899. The question, therefore, is whether of the decretal claims were settled privately and the Manager, Court of Wards, had taken notes of the settlement in the evidence. He also did not put the Manager, Court of Wards, in the witness-box to explain if any decretal claim remained defendants as part of the cause of action. As the actual management admittedly was in charge of the Manager, Court of Section 19(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899. The question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff has succeeded in the person primarily responsible for the loss, if any, under Section 19(1)(c) of the Central Provinces Court of Wards Act, 1899. added as a defendant. The lower Court, by order dated 20-3-1950, however, negatived the contention that he was a necessary party. an act of the State in exercise of its sovereign power, which exempts the defendants from-liability for the loss, if any, of Wards and it was charging the plaintiffs estate a certain percentage of its income on this account. Due to the income on this account. Due to the assumption by the Government of management of the plaintiff's estate, he (plaintiff) was unable
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTG. Rengaraja Rao Vs. A. Tulasibai Ammal
Court: Chennai
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ650
Bombay Civil Courts Act of 1869, Section 19 of the Central Provinces Courts. Act (I of 1917) and Section 30 of Civil Courts Act of 1869, Section 19 of the Central Provinces Courts. Act (I of 1917) and Section 30 of the Act empowering certain selected Subordinate Judges' Courts and District Munsiffs' Courts to issue succession certificates. The Courts of the Subordinate Judges Indian Legislature inserting Section 29 in the Madras Civil Courts Act of 1873, the Indian Succession Act of 1865 and the now under consideration, so far as Succession Certificate Act of 1899 and Part X of the Indian Succession Act are concerned, which reads as follows:Under the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Succession Certificate Act, 1889. (VII of 1889), Judge in the matter of granting succession certificates and that power was continued by Section 388 of the Indian Succession Act George Gazttte, dated 23rd August, 1927, the High Court hereby appoints all Subordinate,Judges ex qfficio as District Delegates under that Act of succession certificates. Except the special notifications in favour of certain selected Subordinate Judge's Courts empowering them to act similarly under has not been empowered by any notification by the Provincial Government either under Section 26 of the Succession Certificate Act (1889)
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>