SAHIBZADA SAIYED MUHAMMED AMIRABBAS ABBASI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT NOW MADHYA PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-1960-2-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 26,1960

SAHIBZADA SAIYED MUHAMMED AMIRABBAS ABBASI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MOHMED RAFIQ HUSSEINMIYA THAKORE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1990-7-7] [RELIED ON]
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY VS. SRI KASHI PRASAD GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-1960-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
SK MD SOLEMAN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1963-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMED MUJEEBUR RAHMAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHAURI LAL JAIN VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER [LAWS(PAT)-1972-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
N. SASIKALA VS. STATE BY THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CB CID, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2000-7-132] [REFERRED TO]
ANIYOTH KUNHAMINA URNMA VS. MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION COVT OF INDIA NEW DELHI [LAWS(SC)-1961-3-26] [APPLIED]
GULAM ABBAS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1981-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
POONAM VS. SUMIT TANWAR [LAWS(SC)-2010-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
PACS CHEMICALS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2010-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
LALL KRISHNA MUNDRA VS. FATICK CHANDRA HAZRA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-1972-6-22] [REFERRED TO]
S.D. VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2021-10-140] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Shah, J. - (1.)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 minor's 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.
(2.)Prima facie, the reliefs claimed are 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 warrant 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 respondents 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 Personal Law.
(3.)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 for 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 wrongfully detained. The High Court refused to give the direction and ordered that the first petitioner might, if so advised, apply under the Guardians and Wards Act for appropriate relief. The first petitioner then applied to the 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 Art. 136 against that order of the High Court was rejected on November 12, 1956.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.