Apex court digest - Jan.2017 [1]

suit for declaration and recovery of possession by Plaintiff  - declaration that the  agreement  for  sale  dated  16th  October,  1988  was without any authority given to Jinendra Jain.  She also made  a  prayer  for recovery of possession and grant of mesne profits since  possession  of  the
plot had been given by Jinendra Jain to Makhija. ; 
- as counter blast - 
Suit for specific performance by defendant -  for  specific  performance  of  the  agreement  dated  16th October, 1988 entered into by  him  with  Pushparani  through  her  attorney
Jinendra Jain.- The  original  of  this  document [power of attorney]  has  not  been produced by anybody. - trial court decreed the suit of plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the defendant; 
Pending appeal the defendant field filed  an application before the High Court under Order XLI Rule 27  of  the  Code  of Civil Procedure[1] (for short the CPC) for adducing additional evidence. - sought  to  bring  on   record   an application said to have been filed by Jinendra Jain with the BDA on  behalf of Pushparani as her attorney for the grant of a  No  Objection  Certificate
in respect of the suit property -the  High  Court  took  the  view  that  a photocopy produced before it was a photocopy  of  another  photocopy  (filed before the BDA) and as such it could not even  be  considered  as  secondary evidence.  Even otherwise, the  High  Court  concluded  that  there  was  no material to indicate that Jinendra Jain was  authorized  to  enter  into  an
agreement for sale the suit property on behalf of Pushparani.-S.L.P.(C) Nos.524-525 of 2003 which  came  to be  dismissed by this Court on 25th July, 2003.  The review petitions  filed
by Makhija also came to be dismissed by this Court on 9th September, 2003.- both suits results became final - the defendant filed another suit - by producing C.C.Copy of power of attorney - the very same photo copy of photo copy.-for a declaration  that  the  decree  dated  4th October, 1999 passed in favour of Pushparani was obtained  in  a  fraudulent manner and is void and not worthy of being executed and the same was dismissed -the appeal was  dismissed.  The  High Court took the view that the alleged Power of  Attorney  dated  30th  April, 1983 could not be accepted as a valid piece of documentary evidence being  a certified copy of a photocopied document.- Second Appeal alleging fraud played on court by concealing the power of attoreny - obtained decree in her favour - Apex court held that A  mere  concealment or non-disclosure without intent to deceive or a bald  allegation  of  fraud without proof and intent to deceive would not render a decree obtained by  a
party as fraudulent.  To conclude in a blanket manner  that  in  every  case where relevant facts  are  not  disclosed,  the  decree  obtained  would  be fraudulent, is stretching the principle to a vanishing point.-   Fraud not having been proved but merely alleged, we do  not  find  any reason to differ with the judgment and order passed by the  High  Court  and the Trial Court. - Appeal dismissed.

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more