|
There are many who are privileged by birth, but there are very few who
place their heritage at the service of the people. Justice Shri Kan
Singh Ji Parihar spent his life in the service of people, in the service
of justice and in the service of law, whether as a Naib Hakim, a
Government Advocate, a Judge of High Court, Chairman of an enquiry
commission for emergency excesses or as a Vice-chancellor of University
of Jodhpur, or now, as an honest citizen devoting much of his time in
reading and in the service of the downtrodden and persons in need
individually or through voluntary organisations.
As
a Justice of High Court of Rajasthan, Shri Kan Singh Ji Parihar retired
on August 30, 1975 after successfully serving the court for more than 11
years. We know that the judges have a dynamic role in the dispensation
of justice, a complete operation that is wide-ranging and capable of
specific and general application, and includes interpretation of law and
assessment of facts. A great judge in a developing country should
develop law and justice with a national vision, architectural perception
and social justice mission.
Shri Kan Singh Ji utilized these great qualities while administrating
justice, in all types of cases civil, criminal, service and
constitutional. His judgments speak for his own style of writing, for
the clarity of exposition of legal principle, the marshalling of facts
and balanced and sound approach in proper perspective.
Thus every judgment delivered by Justice Kan Singh Ji
Parihar became famous for its scholarly, originality, depth and clarity.
His pronouncements will remain monuments in the judicial annals of the
High Court of Rajasthan. Truly, he is a legal luminary. |
|
In
Bhanwar Lal vs. Dhonraj (AIR 1973 Rajasthan 212),
The famous and leading case in the field of Nuisance a branch of Torts
Law. In this case Justice Kan Singh Ji surveyed the prevailing law in
India. Justice Kan Singh Ji laid down the law of Nuisance. After
analysing the case law, Justice Kan Singh Ji propounded the law as
follows:
“The
term ‘nuisance’ is incapable of an exact definition. But its concept is
well understood. There must be interference with the use or enjoyment of
land, or some right over or in connection with it, causing damage to the
plaintiff. The forms of this are innumerable. But whatever be the type,
it does not follow that any harm constitutes a nuisance. The whole law
on the subject really represents a balancing of conflicting interests.
It is repeatedly said in nuisance cases that the rule is
sic utero
tuo ut alienum non laedas but the
maxim is not very informative. In fact the law repeatedly recognizes
that a man may use his own so as to injure another without committing a
nuisance. It is only if such use is unreasonable that it becomes
unlawful. Reasonableness plays an important part in determining whether
or not there has been a nuisance. ’’ (This case is
prescribed as a leading case on the law of Tort in Delhi University).
|
|
In
Sakri vs. Chhanwarlal (AIR 1975 Raj. 134),
Justice Kan
Singh Ji very emphatically scrutinized and maintained the ‘’Duty of
Court’’ relating to reconciliation in the matter of granting any of the
relief recognized under section 23(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955.
He stressed that ‘’ While making of an endeavor to bring about
reconciliation, even at the beginning of the proceeding may be desirable
for requirement of the law, will be amply certified if before the final
stage of the case, namely the granting relief, the court makes such an
endeavor. The effort has to be a reasonable human effort and must be
made in every case where a relief as contemplated by section 23(1) has
to be granted. The court remanded the case to the trial court on the
ground that the aforesaid duty had been over looked by the court. This
is a humanistic approach. |