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

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

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 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more