advocatemmmohan
Trial Court
Declaration of occupancy rights in their favour as well as for affirmation of their possession as tenants in respect of the suit land. A further direction to the defendants 1 and 2 (appellants) to accept rent from the plaintiffs and a permanent restraint against interference in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was also sought in the suit filed. = However, in view of our conclusions on the issue of possession of the plaintiffs’ predecessors on the date of vesting of the land under the Abolition Act and the continuity of the tenure claimed by the plaintiffs after such vesting under Section 8(1) of the Abolition Act the plaintiffs’ suit is liable to be dismissed and the decree granting relief to the plaintiffs is required to be reversed. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order dated 29.7.2000 passed by the High Court in F.A.No.10 of 2001 and allow Civil Appeal No. 1812/2010 challenging the said order. = 2014- Oct.Part- CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1812-1815 OF 2010 STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS FAKIR CHARAN SETHI … RESPONDENT (S) (DEAD THROUGH LRS) & ORS.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1812-1815 OF 2010 STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS FAKIR CHARAN SETHI … RESPONDENT (S) (DEAD THROUGH LRS) & ORS. J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. Civil Appeal No. 1812 of 2010 arising … Continue reading
Unlawful Assembly Sec.149 – Once unlawful assembly was proved with a common object – absence of overt act against the other accused does not vitiate the prosecution story entitling for acquittal – Apex court held that In view of the settled principles of law, once it is established that the unlawful assembly had a common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act, rather they can be convicted under Section 149, IPC. We, therefore, find no error in the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court calling our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 775 of 2007 ANUP LAL YADAV & ANR. … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR …. RESPONDENT = 2014 – Sept.Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41969
Unlawful Assembly Sec.149 – Once unlawful assembly was proved with a common object – absence of overt act against the other accused does not vitiate the prosecution story entitling for acquittal – Apex court held that In view of the settled principles of law, once it is established that the unlawful assembly had a common object, it is not necessary that all … Continue reading
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) -Bribe giving – Registration and Investigation by ASI/SHO in part and later part by Dy. S.P. – not fatal to the prosecution – Giving Bribe to the complainant to do a favour in getting supply orders of Double Deck Beds to Hostels – Trial court acquitted the accused – High court convicted the accused – Apex court held that It is evident that PW-7 Prem Chand who was posted as ASI/IO in the Bharmour Police Station requested the SHO at Chamba to depute a gazette officer to investigate the matter. Even if the part of investigation had been carried out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be illegal. Nothing has been said from the side of the defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused by reason of the investigation carried out. The High Court rightly pointed out that Bharmour being a tribal area, there is a single line administration and lot of power is vested with the Resident Commissioner since the heads of various departments or competent authorities are not available in Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also the Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.we are fully in agreement that the prosecution has proved charges made against the appellant. The provisions of law considered by the High Court ought to have been followed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court decided the matter as if the offence has been committed by the appellant under the provisions of penal code. The Trial Court has not considered the gravity of the offence as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 1564 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6386 of 2012) Narinder Singh ………Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……..Respondent = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41791
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) -Bribe giving – Registration and Investigation by ASI/SHO in part and later part by Dy. S.P. – not fatal to the prosecution – Giving Bribe to the complainant to do a favour in getting supply orders of Double Deck Beds to Hostels … Continue reading
Sec.498 A, 304 B , 306 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. – Trial court convicted the accused – High court acquitted the accused – Apex court held that In the present case from the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly of Santoshbai (PW-6), Geeta (PW-7), Chandrakanta (PW-8), Ranjit (PW-9) and Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11), we find that the harassment of the deceased was with a view to coerce her to convince her parents to meet demand of dowry. The said willful conduct has driven the deceased to commit the suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in absence of specific evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause (b) of Section 498-A IPC, when we hold all the accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased committed suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. This part of the judgment passed by the Trial Court thus cannot be upheld. The prosecution on the basis of evidence has successfully proved that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage; the death of the deceased is caused by burns i.e. nor under normal circumstances. It has also been proved that soon before her death, during her pregnancy the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused that is accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution successfully proved with beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6 are guilty for the offence under Section 304-B, r/w 34 IPC. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the major part of the judgment dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal NO.388 of 2005 except the part relating to offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. = STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … APPELLANT VERSUS RAJENDRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41754
Sec.498 A, 304 B , 306 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. – Trial court convicted the accused – High court acquitted the accused – Apex court held that In the present case from the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly of Santoshbai (PW-6), Geeta (PW-7), Chandrakanta (PW-8), Ranjit (PW-9) and Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11), we find that the harassment of … Continue reading
Khasara entries do not convey title = Suit for declaration of title and injunction – trial court dismissed the suit as it belongs to Municipality /defendant – High court reversed the trial court order basing on revenue entries by saying that ” when the respondents- defendants did not produce property register to show that this property was ever recorded as property of the Municipal Corporation. At one stage it was recorded as Nazul land belonging to the State when the area had not come within the municipal limits. When the area came within the municipal limits it was mentioned to be Behatnam (under management) of the Municipal Corporation. But the possession and title of the plaintiffs has been recorded throughout even thereafter and to have established Abadi over this land, and therefore, the defendants-respondents could not object to the title and possession of the plaintiffs and the suit for declaration of title and injunction ought to have been decreed.” – Apex court set aside the judgment of High court and held that The High Court committed a grave and manifest error of law in reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court by simply placing reliance upon Khasaras entries even without properly appreciating the settled law that Khasara entries do not convey title of the suit property as the same is only relevant for the purposes of paying land revenue and it has nothing to do with ownership.= MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, GWALIOR … APPELLANT VERSUS PURAN SINGH ALIAS PURAN CHAND & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41724
Khasara entries do not convey title = Suit for declaration of title and injunction – trial court dismissed the suit as it belongs to Municipality /defendant – High court reversed the trial court order basing on revenue entries by saying that ” when the respondents- defendants did not produce property register to show that this property was … Continue reading
Sec. 304 B of I.P.C.- Dowry Death – “SOON BEFORE THE DEATH ” – whether the remaining two ingredients are satisfied looking into the evidence on record. The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not specific. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her statement is not reliable and not trustworthy. Though the allegation of demand of dowry was made – none of the witnesses including PW.1 stated that the deceased was harassed “soon before her death” for or in connection with demand of dowry. The accused appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC but the Trial Court has not convicted the accused under Section 498-A. In this background, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused harassed the deceased soon before her death for or in connection with a demand of dowry.= MANOHAR LAL … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA …RESPONDENT= 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41716
Sec. 304 B of I.P.C.- Dowry Death – “SOON BEFORE THE DEATH ” – whether the remaining two ingredients are satisfied looking into the evidence on record. The statement of the complainant PW.1 is general and not specific. No specific incidence has been indicated suggesting the cruelty or harassment made by the accused-Manohar Lal. Her statement is not reliable and not trustworthy. Though the … Continue reading
Apex court – leniency in sentence, considering the age of the first appellant Smt. Ashi Devi, in Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2009. In the Memorandum of Appeal herein her age is mentioned as 88. As on date she is aged 93 years. The jail certificate dated 1.4.2009 states that she was admitted to Tihar Jail on 5.2.2009. This Court granted bail to her by order dated 13.5.2009. The above shows that she has undergone a part of the sentence. Considering her old age we are inclined to modify the sentence awarded to her= Ashi Devi & Ors. .. Appellant(s) versus State (NCT of Delhi) .. Respondent(s) =2014 (June .Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41571
Apex court – leniency in sentence, considering the age of the first appellant Smt. Ashi Devi, in Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2009. In the Memorandum of Appeal herein her age is mentioned as 88. As on date she is aged 93 years. The jail certificate dated 1.4.2009 states that she was admitted to Tihar Jail on 5.2.2009. This Court granted … Continue reading
Eviction case – in the absence of dispute about legal status of petitioner – court should not misdirect itself for stray entire in one of the record with out considering the records and evidence – continued by sons of original owner who died pending case against the son of Tenant – Trial court decreed the case – High court dismissed as misdirected holding that the appellants here in are not the sons of Original owner basing of Ration card in which the father name of appellants was showned as Muneshwar Rao – Apex court held that Muneshwar Rao and Narayanappa are one the same as per Reg. Will Deed left by Narayanappa and further it is not case of the respondent that the petitioners are not the sons of Narayanappa – mere entry in Ration card can not over weigh the evidence – The car registration certificate attached present with affidavit when disputed can not be considered – Apex court set aside the High court judgement and restored the Trail court order = K. Narayanappa (D) By Lrs. .. Appellant(s) -vs- R. Prakash .. Respondent(s) =2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41539
Eviction case – in the absence of dispute about legal status of petitioner – court should not misdirect itself for stray entire in one of the record with out considering the records and evidence – continued by sons of original owner who died pending case against the son of Tenant – Trial court decreed the … Continue reading
Or.2 rule 2 of C.P.C- when there is possibility of filing one suit for two reliefs and when there is no proper explanation for filing two suits on the same cause of action, Or.2 rule 2 certainly bars the second suit – Two suits on the same cause of action for non-issuing of ICO STAMPS , the plaintiff sustained huge loss on different dates – though the claims in both suit are for different amounts but the cause of action is one and same , Trial court dismissed the later suit but high court partly allowed the suit claim – Apex court held that we are of the opinion that suits should have been merged with the claims against coffee purchased between July 25,1982 and September 8, 1982, (a period arising from the merging of the two periods claimed in the suits wherein eight days overlapped each other) clubbed together in the same suit from which two reliefs, first being the losses due to delayed shipment and second being the costs and losses arising due to the recall of the shipment, could have been claimed. In the present factual matrix both the reliefs are being claimed separately in the two concerned suits. This scenario negates the principle of Order 2, Rule 2 in absence of any explanation as to why the respondent failed to claim the relief by way of a single suit when the cause of action was the same in the both. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court in its judgment dated March 17, 2005 correctly held that in light of O.S. No. 3150 of 1985 the present suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the High Court has misappreciated the facts in the light of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code and thereby the reasoning of the High Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The said suit (O.S.No.4763 of 1986) is barred. Considering the facts, as discussed above, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and uphold the order of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the suit of the respondent is dismissed.= Coffee Board .… Appellant versus M/S. Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd. ….Respondents = 2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41536
Or.2 rule 2 of C.P.C- when there is possibility of filing one suit for two reliefs and when there is no proper explanation for filing two suits on the same cause of action, Or.2 rule 2 certainly bars the second suit – Two suits on the same cause of action for non-issuing of ICO STAMPS , the plaintiff … Continue reading
Sec.2 , 3 of Grants Act – Cantonment board – resumption of land – wrongly claimed that the grant is free from holds – mere entry in GLR survey never confirm title – suits for recovery of resumed property – Apex court held that The plaintiffs-respondents have only right with regard to the structure built on the suit premises. The Union of India-appellants have a right for resumption of the suit premises, as evident from evidence on record as discussed above. This issue was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court and the High Court which also failed to notice the appellants’ right under Section 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895.- we set aside the impugned judgment dated 25th November, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.272 of 2009, the judgment dated 15th January, 2009 passed by the First Appellate Court and judgment and decree dated 9th June, 2005 passed by the Trial Court. Civil Suit No.695/1999 on the file of Small Causes Court, Pune is dismissed.= UNION OF INDIA & ANR. … APPELLANTS VERSUS DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41515
Sec.2 , 3 of Grants Act – Cantonment board – resumption of land – wrongly claimed that the grant is free from holds – mere entry in GLR survey never confirm title – suits for recovery of resumed property – Apex court held that The plaintiffs-respondents have only right with regard to the structure built on the suit premises. The Union … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 