Posts

Partition Suit - Procedure to be adopted - partition of each and every item is necessary ? - it is not necessary and incumbent that each item of the immovable properties in a suit for partition need be divided by metes and bounds in a final decree, if any of the sharers is desirous of retaining any of the properties without,possibly altering its physical integrity and instead their comparative valuation can be kept in view and the final decree can be modulated accordingly.-When the plaintiff/decree holder is interested in retaining the lands, instead of being forced to sell away his share of lands, the advocate-commissioner should have worked out the feasibility thereof while finalizing his report instead of dividing every piece of petition schedule properties into 24 bits and pieces, consequently to realize that such properties are incapable of being partitioned and cannot be conveniently delivered possession of.- The plaintiff/decree holder is directed to exercise his option in writing within thirty days by filing an appropriate memo before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, disclosing the particulars of lands preferred to be retained by him. -2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

A preliminary decree was passed in the suit on 06.01.1997 in the following terms:         Item Nos.1 and 3 to 9 of plaint A schedule property was ordered to be partitioned into 24 equal shares by metes and bounds and allotted 7 such shares each to the plaintiff, 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant. One such share each was allotted to the defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5. Delivery of possession of the respective shares was ordered after evicting the 1st defendant therefrom. Past profits for a period of two years prior to the filing of the suit and mesne profits from the date of suit till date of delivery of possession with respect to the share allotted to him, of the properties of plaint A schedule was also ordered. In all other respects, the suit claims were rejected.         In pursuance of the preliminary decree, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.207 of 2000 for passing final decree. Final decree was passed on 13.07.2000. Thereafter, I.A.N...
Read more

Suit for Injunction for infringment of Trade Mark - Temporary Injunction - Trial Court Granted restraining the appellant herein from using numbers 2222 on his seed packings till disposal of the suit and dismissed the petition in so far as the relief of restraining the respondent from conducting of Deepika2222 paddy seeds - Their Lordships held that there is a lot of difference between the physical appearance of both the packing of Bags - there is lot of difference between the physical appearance of both the bags - the respondent/plaintiff has not filed any third party affidavits stating that they purchased Deepika2222 of appellants company instead of RS2222 of respondents company mistaking the same and that they have incurred losses of crop, and that not having enough yield of their expectations. - unless prima facie plaintiff proves that there is deceptive alleging infringement, injunction cannot be granted. - the respondent/plaintiff failed to discharge his burden to prove the prima facie case that the trade mark DEEPIK2222 used by the appellant-defendant is deceptively similar to that of the respondents trademark, causing confusion in the minds of average customers and that there is no balance of convenience in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for grant of interim injunction restraining the appellant from using words 2222. The respondent/plaintiff has also failed to make out irreparable injury that has been caused to it by the use of trade mark 2222 of the appellant. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.147 of 2013 in O.S.No.46 of 2013 dated 25.08.2014 is set aside to the extent of restraining the appellant from using words 2222. - 2015 Telangan & A.P. msklawreports

it is clear that there is no dispute that respondent/plaintiff trademark is registered as RS2222 in respect of paddy and there is also no dispute that appellant/defendant is marketing their paddy by using mark Deepika2222.    The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that it has incorporated in the year 2002 and started marketing RS2222 paddy from the year 2002  onwards, whereas Deepika2222 was in research and   development during the year 2011 when Ex.R5 licence cum   permission is given by the Central Government and State Government.   Thus, appellants Deepika2222 has come  subsequently to RS2222.    As per Trade Marks Certificate, Ex.R3 appellant/defendant was permitted on 20.01.2012 by  which time respondent/plaintiff already invented, developed and also marketed RS2222 variety of paddy.     Ex.P6, is a seed bag discloses that it is a white colour HDPE bag.   Moreover, the petitioner companys logo...
Read more

Land acquisition case - Cheque petitions by Legal Heirs as Decree Holders - Court enhanced the compensation - Govt. filed appeal - High court directed to deposit half of the amount and permitted to withdraw with out security - Pending appeal and E.P. the DHR died - his legal heirs /petitioners brought on record and E.P. was amended - Legal Heirs filed cheque petitions - lower court dismissed the same on the ground (1). that he petitioners have not obtained any permission from the Court to withdraw the amount as the legal heirs of deceased Md.Kareem Khan and (2) that the petitioners have not filed any document to show prima facie that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Md.Kareem Khan. - their Lordships held that A law Court should always be pragmatic in its approach and not dogmatic. The lower Court completely lacked proper vision in dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioners by assigning jejune reasons. The approach of the lower Court calls for strong indictment. For the above-mentioned reasons, the orders under revisions are set aside.- 2015 Telangan & A.P. msklawreports

This Court is constrained to place on record its thorough dissatisfaction with the manner in which the lower Court presided over by no less an Officer than of the cadre of Additional District Judge has passed the orders under revisions. One Md.Kareem Khan was admittedly the owner of certain lands, which were acquired along with various lands belonging to other persons for the purpose of outer ring road for Hyderabad.  An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 24.11.2007 fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per sq.yard. Feeling dissatisfied with the said award, the said Md.Kareem Khan has got the dispute referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.  By award, dated 29.04.2013, the reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,500/- per sq.yard. in LA.AS.MP.No.141 of 2014, a Division Bench of this Court has suspended the judgment of the reference Court on condition of respondent No.1 depositing half of the enh...
Read more

Rule 5 of A.P. Panchayat Raj ElectionTribunal in Respect of Gram Panchayat Rules, 1995 (for short the Rules, 1995). - Deposit of Rs.100/- along with Election petition is mandatory - No court can give time beyond the 30 days from the date of original cause of action - Petitioner not vigilant failed to deposit the amount at the time of return of case bundle with objections or after completion of court staff strike by 20-10-2013 - - Election Tribunal cum Junior Civil Judge dismissed the Election petition on the ground of not depositing security amount of Rs.100/- as per Rule 5 - held on 27-7-2013 - Election petition filed on 24-8-2013 with in 30 days - on the same day petition was returned with an objection that security amount of Rs.100/- was not deposited along with petition.-staff of the Court was on strike from 19.8.2013 to 20.10.2013- represented the petition on 11.11.2013 duly complying with objection and filed lodgment schedule on the same day. - Petitioner gave explanation fornon payment of security amount along with petition stating that staff of theCourt was on strike from 19.8.2013 to 20.10.2013.- Lower court dismissed the Election Petition for non compliance of Mandatory Rule - Revision - their Lordships Held that the Anjanamma case is not applicable to this case - in that case Though on a plain reading of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1995 such course is not envisaged; this Court proceeded to give benefit of doubt to a person if Rs.100/- is not paid along with Election Petition when it was originally presented but has complied with the mandate within one month, the limitation prescribed for filing Election Petition -petitioner ought to have been diligent in at-least filing the lodgment schedule immediately after the strike was over i.e., on 20.10.2013. Even after petition was returned, the petitioner did not take steps to file lodgment schedule immediately but filed the same only on 11.11.2013- Revision Dismissed - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Election to the post of Sarpanch and other ward members of Narasampalli Gram Panchayat  was held on 27.7.2013 Challenging the Grama Panchayat Elections, petitioner filed election petition C.F.No. 2484 of 2013 before the Election Tribunal on 24.8.2013.   Since the staff of the Court was on strike from 19.8.2013 to 20.10.2013, the petition was submitted before the Presiding Officer and the same petition was returned on 28.10.2013 with certain objections.    One of the objections taken was on the maintainability of the petition, since security amount of Rs.100/- was not deposited along with petition. Petitioner  represented the petition on 11.11.2013 duly complying with objection and filed lodgment schedule on the same day.     Petitioner gave explanation for non payment of security amount along with petition stating that staff of the Court was on strike from 19.8.2013 to 20.10.2013. The Election Tribunal by order dated 13.2.2014 dismi...
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

Specific Performance suit - Art.54 of Limitation Act - Or.VII, rule 11 of CPC - possession of the property does not make any difference - original cause of action became available to the plaintiffs on 2.12.1973, the date fixed for the performance of the contract -extended till 1.2.1977 as requested by the defendants- The sons of the second defendant filed a suit in July 1985 against defendants 2, 3 and the plaintiffs seeking for declaration that the present suit property is their ancestral joint family and the sale made by the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs be declared as null and void. -the plaintiffs did not file the suit immediately even after dismissal of their suit - mere fact that the defendants have not obtained the said permission would not lead to inference that no cause of action for filing the suit for specific performance would arise.-Further it is also not the case for postponing the performance to a future date without fixing any further date for performance. - The suit having been filed in the year 1994 is barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.- We are of the view that the High Court committed manifest error in reversing the well considered order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint as barred by the law of limitation and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed - 2015 S.C.MSKLAWREPORTS

The defendants 1 to 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule  11  CPC  on 10.10.1996 seeking for rejection of the plaint  as  barred  by  the  law  of limitation.   The Trial Court after hearing both sides by  a  speaking  order held that the suit is patently barred by the law of limitation  and  allowed the application by rejecting the plaint .  The  plaintiffs  preferred  appeal in RFA no.350 of 1997 and the High Court by the  impugned  judgment  allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the Trial Court  and  restored  the suit to file . Aggrieved by  the  same  the  defendants  have  preferred  the present appeal.  The fact that the plaintiffs were put in possession  of  the  property agreed to be sold on the  date  of  agreement  itself  would  not ...
Read more

Divorce & Restitution of Conjugal Rights - If a spouse abuses the other as being born from a prostitute, this cannot be termed as “wear and tear” of family life. - Summoning the police on false or flimsy grounds cannot also be similarly viewed. - Making it impossible for any close relatives to visit or reside in the matrimonial home would also indubitably result in cruelty to the other spouse. - After a cursory discussion of the evidence which the Trial Court had discussed threadbare, the High Court was not justified to set aside the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court without giving substantiated reasons. - 2015 S.C. msklawreports

The Trial Court   The Appellant has deposed  that when his sister came to the U.S., she initially  stayed  with  him  and  the Respondent.  However, the Respondent did not like having her  in  the  house, so she locked the Respondent and his sister out of the  house,  was  abusive towards them and told them that they  belonged  to  a  “prostitute  family”. Eventually the Appellant’s sister was constrained to stay at  a  Lodge. The Respondent claimed that the dispute was because her sister-in-law  tried  to make her join her diamond business, which she did not want to do. The  Trial Court found no truth in the argument of the  Respondent,  in  light  of  the fact that she has no  background  or  knowledge  of  the  diamond  business. Furthermore, the Appellant has deposed that when his ...
Read more