Posts

2017 AP HIGH COURT - JUNE 7

1.  Whether Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is applicable to
the proof of a Will and the failure to apply the same by the Courts below
is a perverse and unsustainable conclusion even concurrently and same
is devoid of merits and even if so, for not specifically raised in the Courts
below, whether open to raise and to consider in the second appeal?

     2.  Whether it is the wording of Section 63 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 that is required to be reproduced by a witness in proof of a Will
i.e., one of the attestors required to be examined or it is to be construed of
the twin requirements from a reading of the evidence as a whole in
appreciation with facts and law and, if so, the conclusions arrived by the
Courts below of the Will is not proved by satisfying the twin requirements
of Section 63 of the Act are perverse and unsustainable?

     3.  Whether the Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances
even same either under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, if at all to apply,
and even ot…

2017 - APHIGH COURT - JUNE 6

2017 - AP HIGH COURT DIGEST - JUNE 5 Whether the investigating officer can grant station bail to accused while dealing with him under Sec.41-A Cr.P.C when the offence is a special Act offence under ST & SC Act?- yes-

2017- A.P. DIGEST - JUNE 4

five accused were acquitted of the
charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. -
Moreover the viscera contain mercury metallic
poison along with Ethyl alcohol.  According to
P.W.10, mercury is a corrosive substance and it
caused damage to the lips, mouth, throat and
oesonghages.  But, there is no corrosive
appearance on the lips, mouth and throat of the
deceased to fix up the liability against the
accused that they poured manocrotopas mercury  
metallic poison in the mouth of deceased and
killed her.
On a careful appreciation of the entire oral and
documentary evidence on record and the reasons assigned by  
the trial Court, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt and that the trial Court has rightly
acquitted all the accused of the charge framed against them.

2017- A.P. DIGEST - JUNE3

Order XXVI Rule 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure  for sending expert opinion at fag end of the arguments- delay - dismissed  = suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale - Ex.A.1, in the year 2010. -  filed a written
statement wherein they have denied the execution of the agreement of
sale by disputing the signatures.- I.A. under Order XXVI Rule 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to send Ex.A.1 and the written
statement in original to an handwriting expert for comparison of the
admitted signatures with the disputed signatures on Ex.A.1. - This
application was dismissed by the lower Court on the sole ground of
inordinate delay in filing the application and especially at the stage of
arguments.  - 
their lordships held that   I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that cause of action for his client to file the
application for sending the suit document for experts opinion arose only
on closure of the defendants evidence.  With the denial o…

2017 - A.P.DIGEST - JUNE 2

Or.39, rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. - granting interim injunction against sub registrar who is not a party to the suit - No interim injunction exparte can be granted against third party to the suit-
Even in Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdary and Others
(6th supra), the Apex Court made it clear that the injunction cannot
be granted against the person who is not a party to the proceedings,
but the Tribunal observed that in the utmost necessity the court can
grant an interim order even before impleading the person against
whom the interim order is sought for.   It is not the law declared by
the Apex court, but it is an observation made by the Tribunal.  Even
otherwise, it is for the court to record reasons that there is an utmost
necessity to grant an interim injunction, before impleading a person
against whom the interim order was sought for. But here the order is
bereft of any reasons to conclude that there is utmost necessity.  Even
the order is silent that in view of utmost necessity the interim orde…