whether by virtue of marriage, a person would become a member of the Scheduled Caste - No - 2015 A.P. (2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

whether by virtue of marriage, a person would become a member of the Scheduled Caste - No - 2015 A.P. (2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

 It is the case of
the writ petitioner that though in her school record maintained by
Government DVHSS School, Vechoor, Kottayam District, Kerala   
her caste was recorded as Roman Catholic, since she has been  
continuously staying at Udimidi Village, and also married a
scheduled caste person and was also undergoing all the ordeals
attached to the scheduled caste community, the said community  
has treated, considered and accepted her as one amongst them. 
 It is
further contended that on her marriage, she becomes part of the
family of her husband and accordingly becomes a member of the 
same caste, to which her husband belongs. Since there was never 
any dispute that her husband belongs to the Scheduled caste
community, the petitioner cannot be treated any differently. Strong
reliance was placed in support of the above plea upon the
judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Vassamma Paul v.  
Cochin University and others =
whether by virtue of
marriage, a person would become a member of the Scheduled   
Caste has fallen for consideration before the Supreme Court, on
more than once occasion. in Vassamma Paul v.  Cochin University and others .
But 
The Supreme Court in Rameshbhai has reviewed several earlier judgments and analysed the ratio of Valsamma Paulcase in that regard.
in an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal
and a non-tribal the woman must in all cases take her caste
from the husband, as a rule of Constitutional Law is a
proposition, the correctness of which is not free from doubt.
And in any case it is not the ratio of the Valsamma decision
and does not make a binding precedent.
        It is also clear to us that taking it to the next logical step
and to hold that the off-spring of such a marriage would in all
cases get his/her caste from the father is bound to give rise to
serious problems. Take for instance the case of a tribal woman
getting married to a forward caste man and who is widowed or
is abandoned by the husband shortly after marriage. She goes
back to her people and the community carrying with her an
infant or may be a child still in the womb.
The child is born in
the community from where her mother came and to which she
went back and is brought up as the member of that
community suffering all the deprivations, humiliations,
disabilities and handicaps as a member of the community. Can
it still be said that the child would have the caste of his father
and, therefore, not entitled to any benefits, privileges or
protections sanctioned by the Constitution.
      If the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court has been
understood in a particular manner, by a subsequent judgment of
the Supreme Court, and the earlier judgment was explained, that
is only the manner in which the earlier Judgment of the Supreme
Court is liable to be understood.

Popular posts from this blog

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - permission of court for selling minor property by natural guardian- In the present case, though it is stated that the property has been sold for the proper benefit of the minors, their protection, education and marriage,there is nothing on record to suggest that previous permission of the Court was obtained by the natural guardian before transfer by sale in question.-2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS24

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 deals with the powers of natural guardian of a Hindu minor and the said section mandates that the natural guardian has power to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realisation, protection or benefit of the minor's estate, etc. The provision reads as follows: Sec. 8 . Powers of natural guardian.- (1) The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do all acts which are necessary or reasonable and proper for the benefit of the minor or for the realization, protection or benefit of the minor's estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal covenant. (2) The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court,- (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any part of the immovable property of the minor; or (b) lease any part of such pro...
Read more

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it...
Read more

Court Fee - whether on refund of advance money or on entire sale agreement consideration - Specific performance of contract - suppression of material facts(previous litigations on the property) - contract rescinded - suit filed for refund of money - court fee is to be paid on refund claimed amount but not on entire sale agreement consideration = 2015 CHENNAI(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS

it is clear that seeking relief of specific performance of the contract is different from seeking return of advance amount. It has been held that if a suit is filed without seeking specific performance of contract, but only for return of advance amount paid, subsequently, the plaint cannot be amended. 16. As per the pleadings of the plaint, the suit was filed by the petitioner / plaintiff, stating that the respondent / defendant had suppressed the pendency of various litigations, in respect of the property, which is the subject matter of the agreement for sale, hence, he rescind the contract and demanded the respondent for return of the advance amount.  At this stage, the Court below cannot go into the merits of the case for deciding the Court fees payable. The Court below has to consider the pleadings of the petitioner / plaintiff. As per the averments made by the petitioner / plaintiff, the respondent / defendant had suppressed the pending litigation, in respec...
Read more