Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BANNEY versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Banney v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 52959 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17096 (30 October 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner, aggrieved by an order dated 9th October 2007 passed by respondent no.2, approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Respondent no.2 pursuant a direction issued by this Court in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being Writ Petition No.6619 of 2007 has decided the claim of the petitioner regarding appointment under Dying in Harness Rules in place of his mother who has died in harness. I have gone through the order passed by the authority. The authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that during the life time the mother of petitioner has declared that the petitioner is not entitled to succed her movable and immovable property and has declared that instead her daughter Nafeesa Begum is entitled to claim as her successor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the mother of the petitioner has executed a subsequent will which is annexed to the writ petition but it appears that the same was not before the authorities and the authorities have not discussed the same.

Be it as it may be, in the circumstances of the case since there are two rival claimants, the remedy to the petitioner is to get his right adjudicated by Civil Court and not by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

I do not find any error much less an error apparent on the face of record in the order impugned so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.

Dt: 30.10.2007.

mhu - 52959/07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.