Posts

Sec.25 of Hindu Marriage Act = even after a decree of divorce, permanent alimony can be granted to the spouse who has applied for it unless the conduct of the spouse is abominable; and that mere desertion of the spouse would not amount to abominable conduct. It is only if the conduct of the petitioner is abominable, would this Court be required to consider whether, and to what extent, such conduct would have an effect on the grant of permanent alimony. The word abominable means odious, offensive. The conduct of both the parties before, during the pendency of proceedings, and after filing the present petition is relevant. The material on record does show that the petitioner has made serious allegations against her husband. She filed a criminal case against him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. She also threatened to commit suicide. While her conduct is not beyond reproach, is it such as to disentitle her from being granted permanent alimony? -2015 A.P.(1977) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sec.25 of Hindu Marriage Act = even after a decree of divorce, permanent alimony can be granted to the spouse who has applied for it unless the conduct of the spouse is abominable; and that mere desertion of the spouse would not amount to abominable conduct. It is only if the conduct of the petitioner is abominable, would this Court be required to consider whether, and to what extent, such conduct would have an effect on the grant of permanent alimony. The word abominable means odious, offensive. The conduct of both the parties before, during the pendency of proceedings, and after filing the present petition is relevant. The material on record does show that the petitioner has made serious allegations against her husband. She filed a criminal case against him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. She also threatened to commit suicide. While her conduct is not beyond reproach, is it such as to disentitle her from being granted permanent alimony? -2015 A.P.(1977) MSKLAW...
Read more

Mere payment of fine - Employment

summary trial proceedings and what had the appellant pleaded to as guilty, whether to the allegations in the FIR or to the provision of the IPC or any other particular? Mere payment of fine of Rs.20/- does not go to show that the conviction was validly and legally recorded. Assuming that the conviction is not open to challenge at the present juncture, we cannot but deprecate the action of the respondents in having proceeded to adversely certify the character and antecedents of the appellant on the basis of the conviction per se, opining to have involved moral turpitude, without satisfying the tests laid down in the policy decision of the government. We are rather unhappy to note that all the three courts below, even when invited to judge the matter in the said perspective, went on to hold that the act/s involved in conviction under section 294 IPC per se established moral turpitude. They should have been sensitive to the changing perspectives and concepts of morality to appreciate th...
Read more

suit for declaration without cancellation of sale deed is valid

Suit for partition  -questioning the validity and binding nature of sale deed without asking for cancellation . Partition suit without prayer for cancellation of sale deed is maintainable and the question of limitation of 3 years not applies from the date of alienation As the plaintiff is not eo nomine a party to the sale-deed, it is not necessary for him to pray for cancellation of the sale-deed and it is open for him to question the validity and binding nature of the sale-deed that the lower Court erred in holding that the suit filed for partition without a prayer for cancellation of the sale-deed is not maintainable and that the suit is also barred by limitation inasmuch as it was not filed within three years from the date of the alienation. I find force in this submission. As the plaintiff is not eo nomine a party to the sale-deed, it is not necessary for him to pray for cancellation of the sale-deed and it is open for him to question the validity and binding nature of th...
Read more

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it...
Read more

Suit for partition - Sec.34 of A.P.S.V.& C.F. Act - Under Section 34(2), in a suit for partition where the plaintiffs are seeking partition of suit and separate possession of the joint family properties, and if the plaintiff's are in joint possession of such property, the Court fee payable in respect of the suit for partition, where the value is over and above Rs. 10,000/-, is only Rs. 200/-. In the instant case, the plaintiff's have asserted that they are in joint possession of the properties sold by the Defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the 7th defendant. Therefore, the Court fee payable by them is only Rs. 200/-, which was already paid.

Suit for partition - Sec.34 of A.P.S.V.& C.F. Act - Under Section 34(2), in a suit for partition where the plaintiffs are seeking partition of suit and separate possession of the joint family properties, and if the plaintiff's are in joint possession of such property, the Court fee payable in respect of the suit for partition, where the value is over and above Rs. 10,000/-, is only Rs. 200/-. In the instant case, the plaintiff's have asserted that they are in joint possession of the properties sold by the Defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the 7th defendant. Therefore, the Court fee payable by them is only Rs. 200/-, which was already paid.
Read more

Rent Control Appeal - Deposit of arrears of rents is a conditional precedent under A.P.Rent Control Act - payment of rent is a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal;2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

Rent Control Appeal - Deposit of arrears of rents is a conditional precedent under A.P.Rent Control Act -  payment of rent is a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal;2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS the appellate Court was justified in not numbering the appeal unless and until the rent was deposited; in a case where the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, the finding given by the Rent Controller holds good; deposit of arrears of rent, as determined by the Rent Controller, was indispensable; and it could not be said that the appellate Court had committed any illegality or impropriety in rejecting the appeal in limini.  Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court considered it fit to grant time to the petitioners to deposit the rents making it clear that, in the event of the failure of the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent, the order, rejecting the appeal, would stand and steps could be taken for eviction. ...
Read more

Partition suit - Appreciate of evidence - whether the House was constructed by joint funds or the site and house was self acquired property of defendant ? - Trial court dismissed the claim - Appellant court expressed that the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the amount paid by plaintiff's husband - Apex court held that Therefore, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court on the contentious issue No.4 are not only erroneous in law but also suffer from error in law for the reason that there is a positive and substantive evidence elicited by the deceased-first defendant during the course of his cross examination before the trial court, the relevant portion of which is extracted above, wherein he had in unequivocal terms admitted in his evidence that he, his sons and daughters have an ancestral property in his village and the same has not been divided between them and that he used to get the income from the said agricultural land and the same was utilized by him for the construction of the building at Sant Nagar, i.e. schedule ‘B’ property. Therefore, it amounts to putting the said property in the hotchpot of joint family property. The non-consideration of the above positive and substantive evidence by the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court in justificat ion of the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule ‘B’ property has rendered the concurrent finding recorded by it as erroneous in law and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.-2015 S.C.MSKLAWREPORTS

Partition suit - Appreciate of evidence - whether the House was constructed by joint funds or the site and house was self acquired property of defendant ? - Trial court dismissed the claim - Appellant court expressed that the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the amount paid by plaintiff's husband - Apex court held that  Therefore, the concurrent finding  of  fact  recorded by both the trial court  as  well  as  the  First  Appellate  Court  on  the contentious issue No.4 are not only erroneous in law but  also  suffer  from error in law for the  reason  that  there  is  a  positive  and  substantive evidence elicited by the deceased-first defendant during the course  of  his cross examination before the trial court, the relevant portion of  which  is  extracted above, wherein  he  had  in  unequivoca...
Read more