Posts

Or.6, rule 17 C.P.C. - It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The Court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost.-2015 SC msklawreports

Or.6, rule 17 C.P.C. - It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The Court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost.-2015 SC msklawreports
Read more

Or.1, rule 10 of C.P.C.- suit for specific performance - purchasers pending suit filed impleading petition - their lordships allowed the same subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff with a condition that they cannot be permitted to take defences which are not available to their vendors -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPROTS

It is well settled in law that in case of impleadment of parties, it is not the jurisdiction of the Court, but the judicial discretion which has to be exercised keeping in mind all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In the present case, the application is filed by persons, who claimed to have purchased a part of property under a registered sale deed pending the suit. Though they ought to have been aware of the paper publication taken by the Plaintiff prior to the institution of the suit and the pendency of the suit, as the vendors were made parties to the proceedings, their legal rights in the property would be affected by the proposed decree, if it is passed in favour of the plaintiff. The petitioners did not explain the reason for filing the application belatedly after five years. Almost all the defendants in the suit have not contested. Though defendant No.9 filed a written statement, he did not participate in the subsequent proceedings.   ...
Read more

Sec.376 r/w 511 of I.P.C. - Vs- Sec.354 of I.P.C. and sec.4 of Probation of offenders Act - Outraging modesty of a minor girl - no benefit under Probation of Offenders Act available to the accused - on shouting accused fled away before committing any attempt to rape - Trial court found an offence under Sec.354 I.P.C. - Delay in lodging F.I.R. - no eye witness - Prosecutrix deposed that the accused did bad things - alleged eye witness stated that on his shout accused fled away - No Doctor Report - Trial court acquitted him under Sec.4 of Probation of Offenders act - High court rejected the appeal - Apex court held that accused is not a minor, rather he has committed an offence against a minor girl who is helpless. - Further, it is clear from the evidence on record that he ran away only when the prosecutrix screamed and PW3 came to the place of incident, which goes on to show that the accused could have had worse intentions. The offence is heinous in nature and there is no reason for granting benefit of probation in this case. The Trial Court has not given any special consideration to the character of the accused apart from the fact that this was the first conviction of the accused. We find this is far from sufficient to grant probation in an offence like outraging the modesty of a woman. - 2015 S.C.MSKLAWREPORTS

No  one       was there in the house and Sri Chand took his daughter the prosecutrix       inside the room, closed the door from inside, forcibly  undressed  her       and made her to lie on the ground and started raping her forcibly. The       prosecutrix cried upon which Sri Chand put some cloth  in  her  mouth.       Hearing her cries, Bihari Saini, who was passing nearby, reached there       and he witnessed the  whole  incident.  Saroj  wife  of  Prahlad  also       reached at the site. Out of fear, accused Sri Chand fled away from the       place of incident. the  Trial  Court  acquitted  the       accused respondent by granting him probation The State  of  Rajasthan       preferred an appeal before the High  Court,...
Read more

Whether the amendment petition ousting jurisdiction can be considered ? - yes - 2015 A.P.(1993) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. runs as follows:- 17. "The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties." It is necessary to notice the provisions of Order 7, Rule 10 C.P.C. at this juncture.  The same is extracted hereunder:- 10. (1) (Subject to the provisions of the Rule 10A, the plaint shall) at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted." A combined reading of both the provisions make it abundantly clear to one's mind that Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. makes it obligatory on the Court to consider an application for amendment in any pending suit. On a consideration of the said application, if it exceeds the jurisdiction of the said Court, it has to invoke the provi...
Read more

When the party of the suit attested the Will Deed and when not disputed his signature as attestatror - and when only disputes the bequeathing of property - the question of proof of will does not arise -2015 A.P.(2006) MSKLAWREPORTS.

another interesting feature is that the plaintiff attested the said document as one of the attesters by affixing her thumb impression. The plaintiff did not dispute the thumb impression and took a plea that even if the thumb impression is obtained on the Will, she was a minor by the date of the execution of the Will, therefore, it has no effect. But on record, it came to light that the plaintiff was a major by the date of the execution of the Will and she never disputed the attestation of the Will, though she disputed bequeathing of property in favour of the second defendant.   The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that though there was some discrepancy in describing the paper used for the Will, the contents have been effectively proved by examining all the attestors and son of the scribe. The said Will was executed out of love and affection towards the second defendant by the mother of the plaintiff as the second defendant's father gave them shelter and brought them ...
Read more

Proof of Will when arose - If a dispute was raised as to the execution and genuineness of a Will, then a question may arise whether the opposite party, who propounded the Will, has proved the same in accordance with law or not. But in the absence of any plea as to casting of any doubt or shadow as to the execution and genuineness of the Will, still would it be obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove the said document. The contention of the plaintiff is that there is no obligation to adduce evidence to prove such document, whose execution and genuineness was not disputed - 2015 A.P.(2006) MSKLAWREPORTS

 Coming to the second issue as to the non-adducing of evidence by the plaintiff to prove Ex.A.6 Will, a perusal of the pleadings clearly shows that no doubt was cast either on execution or genuineness of the Will. What was pleaded by the defendants in the written statement was that the suit schedule property was the Stridhana property of first defendant's mother, therefore, the first defendant succeeds to the same with absolute rights, and hence, the sale deed executed by her in favour of the second defendant is valid. Now having lost in their attempt to claim that it is the Stridhana property of the first defendant's mother, the defendants have now turned round to attack the Will executed by Bomma Suryanarayana under Ex.A.6. Though the learned Counsel relied upon various other decisions where certain observations were made that a legal issue can be raised even at a later stage of the proceedings, but here it is not a pure legal issue. If a dispute was raised as to the execu...
Read more

Will could not be executed with respect to undivided share of the joint family property. -2015 S.C.(1964) MSKLAWREPORTS

Will could not be executed with respect to undivided share of the joint family property. -2015 S.C.(1964) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more