Total Pageviews

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

SUCCESSION ACT, 1925

Inheritance--Cancellation of Will--Succession on basis of inheritance--Plaintiff-respondent sufficiently proved execution of cancellation deed revoking earlier Will--Appellant/defendants failed to establish execution of subsequent document vide which earlier Will was allegedly reasserted thereby disowning cancellation deed--Suit of plaintiff/respondent to extent of 1/3rd share of estate of deceased on basis of natural succession in absence of Will decreed.; Jaspal Singh & Anr. v. Gurcharan Kaur ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 714
-----------------

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963
S.6--Encroachment--Possession--Title--Bahi Entry--Defendant claiming title on basis of writing in bahi not proved--Defendant claiming to purchase suit land for Rs.800/- but no sale deed was registered--He has no title over suit plot--Even if specific part of khasra claimed by plaintiff did not fall to his share in mutual partition but plaintiff would still remain co-sharer in entire khasra and can claim possession from defendant who is trespasser--Some minor contradiction or discrepancy regarding date or month of taking possession by defendant would not disentitle plaintiff to relief of possession when his claim is based on title.; Dharambir & Ors. v. Chet Ram ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 716
S.28--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.148--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21, R.34(2)--Extension of time for deposit of balance sale amount--Suit filed by DH was decreed by the trial court on 21.4.1987--DH was required to deposit the balance amount within two months thereof--DH accordingly deposited the same on 18.5.1987--Said amount remained deposited with the executing court for more than a year--Said amount was withdrawn by DH with permission of the court apparently in the year 1989 when execution petition was adjourned sine die in view of interim stay granted by High Court in second appeal--After final decision of the second appeal by High Court vide judgment dated 22.12.1995, both the parties agitated the matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLPs--After the SLPs were also dismissed the DH filed application dated 2.4.1997 for revival of the execution petition which had earlier been adjourned sine die--However, DH died on 26.5.1997--His LRs thereafter moved application on 7.8.1997 in the executing court under section 148 CPC for extension of time--Pursuant to order dated 4.9.1997 passed by the executing court, the decree holder deposited the balance amount on 14.10.1997--In this manner the executing court is deemed to have granted extension of time to the decree holder for deposit of the balance sale price--DH made sufficient ground for extension of time.; Rai Singh v. Mohinder Singh tho. LRs.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 701
S.28--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.148--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21, R.34(2)--Suit decreed for specific performance--Extension of time for deposit of balance sale amount--DH secured the decree which was upheld upto High Court--Rights of the decree holder under the decree cannot be disturbed merely because there was some delay in deposit of balance sale price particularly because the DH had earlier also deposited the balance sale price pursuant to decree of the trial court and the said amount remained deposited with the court for more than a year.; Rai Singh v. Mohinder Singh tho. LRs.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 701
S.34--Permanent Injunction--Possession--Without giving finding regarding possession relief of injunction could not have been granted--Consequent finding regarding possession of plaintiff cannot be deemed to be relief of declaration.; Gurmail Ram & Ors. v. Amrik Singh ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 649
S.34--Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.111--Permanent Injunction--Memorandum of Partition--Entry in Jamabandi--Correctness of--Memorandum of partition reveals that plaintiff and defendant no.1 got 4 kanals land each out of Killa no.22//10--Said document pleaded by defendants fully rebuts presumption of correctness attached to entry in Jamabandi in which defendant was shown to be in possession of 5 kanals land of Killa no.22//10 min whereas plaintiff shown to be in possession of 3 Kanals land of Killa no.22//10 min--Moreover, defendants themselves pleaded their possession over 4 kanals land only out of Killa no.22//10--Defendant now cannot plead that he is in possession of 5 kanals land out of killa no.10--Amendment filed by defendant pleading possession of defendant over 5 kanals of land in stead of 4 kanals out of killa no. 10 not allowed--Suit of plaintiff rightly decreed in respect of 4 kanals land of killa no.22//10 min.; Gurmail Ram & Ors. v. Amrik Singh ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 649

REGISTRATION ACT, 1908

S.17--Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.14(2)--Decree passed on the basis of a legal and valid family settlement--Does not require registration--Conferred all the rights and title to the other party.; Smt. Birma & Ors. v. Bhal Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 674

REDEMPTION OF MORTGAGE ACT, 1913

REDEMPTION OF MORTGAGE ACT, 1913
S.6 & 12--Redemption of mortgage--Limitation--Usufructuary Mortgage--There is no time limit to redeem usufructuary mortgage--Application for redemption of mortgage was rightly allowed--Case of Ram Krishan Ors. v. Sheo Ram relied.; Sawan Singh (dead) through LRs and Anr. v. Dalip Singh ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 656

PUNJAB LAND REVENUE ACT, 1887

x
S.5(2)--Occupancy Tenant--Conditions to be fulfilled are -
Tenant should have been in possession for continuous 30 years in land in dispute.
(2) Tenant should not have paid rent for land beyond amount of land revenue thereof and rates and cesses for time being chargeable thereon.; Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 710
S.5(2)--Occupancy Tenant--Mandatory condition not fulfilled for being declared occupancy tenant--Appellant failed to prove that he was in possession for continuous 30 years in land in dispute--As per revenue record eight times lagan was paid by appellant--Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant was not paying amount beyond land revenue and charges and cess payable and not a nominal amount--Moreover, it was found that he was not a tenant on land in dispute as he was never inducted and his possession was found to be illegal.; Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Anr.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 710
S.111--Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34--Memorandum of Partition--Permanent Injunction--Entry in Jamabandi--Correctness of--Memorandum of partition reveals that plaintiff and defendant no.1 got 4 kanals land each out of Killa no.22//10--Said document pleaded by defendants fully rebuts presumption of correctness attached to entry in Jamabandi in which defendant was shown to be in possession of 5 kanals land of Killa no.22//10 min whereas plaintiff shown to be in possession of 3 Kanals land of Killa no.22//10 min--Moreover, defendants themselves pleaded their possession over 4 kanals land only out of Killa no.22//10--Defendant now cannot plead that he is in possession of 5 kanals land out of killa no.10--Amendment filed by defendant pleading possession of defendant over 5 kanals of land in stead of 4 kanals out of killa no. 10 not allowed--Suit of plaintiff rightly decreed in respect of 4 kanals land of killa no.22//10 min.; Gurmail Ram & Ors. v. Amrik Singh ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 649

PUNJAB EXCISE ACT, 1914

S.36(b)--Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970, R.37(36)--Cancellation of Liquor Vend Licence--Non-payment of license fee--Notice--Petitioner was called to payment of outstanding license fee and in failure thereof to face consequence of cancellation--Notice was duly served but no reply filed by petitioner--Action of respondent cancelling of liquor vend licence not illegal.; Ajay Uberoi v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 718
S.36(b)--Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970, R.37(36)--Non-payment of license fee--Forfeitures of security--Petitioner did not pay license fee despite demand being raised--Show cause notice duly served on petitioner--Security amount deposited by petitioner rightly forfeited and liqour vend to be re-auctioned.; Ajay Uberoi v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 718
S.36(b)--Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970, R.37(36)--Petitioner accepted license in name shown therein and deposited license fee and sold liquor w.e.f. April, 1984 to August, 1984--He cannot avoid recovery/forfeiture for non-payment of license fee on ground that his request to correct record deleting names of partners by substituting name of petitioner as sole proprietor was turned down.; Ajay Uberoi v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 718
PUNJAB EXCISE ACT, 1914
S.36(b)--Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970, R.37(36)--Cancellation of Liquor Vend Licence--Non-payment of license fee--Notice--Petitioner was called to payment of outstanding license fee and in failure thereof to face consequence of cancellation--Notice was duly served but no reply filed by petitioner--Action of respondent cancelling of liquor vend licence not illegal.; Ajay Uberoi v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 718
S.36(b)--Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970, R.37(36)--Non-payment of license fee--Forfeitures of security--Petitioner did not pay license fee despite demand being raised--Show cause notice duly served on petitioner--Security amount deposited by petitioner rightly forfeited and liqour vend to be re-auctioned.; Ajay Uberoi v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 718
S.36(b)--Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970, R.37(36)--Petitioner accepted license in name shown therein and deposited license fee and sold liquor w.e.f. April, 1984 to August, 1984--He cannot avoid recovery/forfeiture for non-payment of license fee on ground that his request to correct record deleting names of partners by substituting name of petitioner as sole proprietor was turned down.; Ajay Uberoi v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 718

Thursday, May 13, 2010

NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985

S.15--Acquittal--Recovery of 6 kg. of poppy husk--Alleged recovery effected at 10.30 A.M. from bus stand--SHO reached on spot 1.30 P.M. and verified facts--Accused and case property handed over by him to MHC of police station at 5.30 P.M.--Accused and case property remained in custody of police at spot till 5.25 P.M.--No cogent explanation given which creates doubt on veracity of prosecution case--Therefore, non corroboration of evidence of official witnesses through independent source makes case of prosecution doubtful--Appellant acquitted.; Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 688
S.15--Contraband--Conviction--Recovery of 22½ kg. of poppy husk jute bag--Appellant was sitting near bag which was lying at a distance of one foot from him--Sufficient indication that bag containing contraband was in conscious possession of appellant--Moreover on seeing police party appellant tried to run away from place where contraband was lying--Seals of exhibit intact on arrival and tallied with specimen seal sent--Conviction maintained--Sentence of imprisonment of two years reduced to already undergone by him.; Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 651
S.15--Contraband--Reduction of sentence--Appellant found in possession of 22½ kg. poppy husk--Appellant facing agony of criminal prosecution since July 2004--He has already undergone substantive sentence of about 7½ months out of sentence of 2 years--He is claiming to be a first offender and a poor person--His entire family said to be dependant upon him--Under these circumstances sentence of imprisonment reduced to already undergone by him.; Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 651
S.15--Search and Seizure--Acquittal--Contraband--Standing instructions No.1/88 dated 15.3.1988 issued by Narcotic Control Bureau, Clause 1.13--Delay of 5 days in sending sample--It is duty of investigating agency to send sample parcels to laboratory within 72 hours of seizure--No explanation for late sending sample is forth coming on record creates doubt about veracity of prosecution version and appellant deserves benefit of doubt--Appellant acquitted.; Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 688
S.15--Search and Seizure--Independent witness--Acquittal--Recovery of contraband effected from bus stand at 10.30 a.m.--Non-joining of independent witness at time of recovery--No cogent explanation as to in what manner and to who was asked to join investigation--Feeble explanation that as none wanted to be witness to police case cannot be accepted--Held; that it was duty of police to join independent witness at the time of recovery from bus stand which is surrounded by shops.; Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 688
S.15--Tempering with sample--Acquittal--Prosecution failed to connect case property produced in Court with poppy husk recovered from appellant--Recovery witness admitted that bag is not having any seal--Bag is not sealed and cloth with seal is lying separately and its bottom portion is damaged and hence separated from main bag--Appellant acquitted.; Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 688

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

S.166 and 173--Motor Accident--Claimants suffered injuries in accident--Insurance policy valid only for period 18.12.2006 to 17.12.2006--Contention that policy became operative from date when surveyor inspects vehicle misconceived--Liability of insurance company starts only from date of issue of cover note and not from date when surveyor inspects vehicle--Insurance company exonerated from liability to pay compensation.; State of Haryana & Anr. v. Nagenderpal @ Nagender & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 660
S.166 and 173--Motor Accident--Liability of Insurance Company--Insurance Policy--Liability of insurance company starts only from date of issue of cover note and not from date when surveyor inspects vehicle.; State of Haryana & Anr. v. Nagenderpal @ Nagender & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 660

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894

S.17 & 5-A--Acquisition of land for public purpose--Urgency clause--Dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A--An opinion required to be formed by State Government that along with existence of urgency or unforeseen emergency contemplated by Section 17(1) and 17(2) there is also a need for dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry--Mere existence or unforeseen emergency would not by itself be sufficient for dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry--Even in cases of urgency or emergency right to title objections and grant of an opportunity to hearing under Section 5-A of Act may be kept intact.; Bhopu & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 683
S.17 & 5-A--Acquisition of land for public purpose--Urgency clause--Dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A--No decision with regard to dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A--Section 17(4) of Act invoked only to defeat vital rights of hearing of hearing and filing and filing objections by land owners--Impugned notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 quashed qua petitioner.; Bhopu & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 683

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

S.302 and 34--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154--FIR--Delay in lodging--Police Station from place of occurrence or residential house where dead body was brought back not more than 2 furlongs--Complainant had access to a car in which injured was first taken to civil hospital and then to hospital to Amritsar and when he died his dead body was brought back during night--During entire night occurrence was neither disclosed to police nor to any Panchayat member--Co-villagers cited to witness in disclosure statements and recoveries of weapons of offence were in village--In such circumstances, conduct of witnesses in lodging FIR after such a delay is quite unnatural which raises legitimate inference that prosecution version is highly doubtful--Appellant acquitted.; Mehar Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab,; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 704
S.302 and 34--Murder--Acquittal--No bloodstained earth from place of occurrence lifted--Explanation given by I.O. that on intervening night of commission of offence there was rainfall not corroborated by any other witnesses--Neither electric wire which was being attached for kundi connection which was genesis of occurrence was not taken into possession nor doctor who allegedly examined injured at civil hospital and then referred him to hospital at Amritsar was joined investigation raising a doubt as to whether dead body was ever taken to civil hospital that night--Clothes of deceased were also not sent for chemical examination--Cited witnesses of recovery of weapon upon disclosure statements of accused were not got examined--Even weapons of offence namely balla, sickle, paawa and safeda stick are of kind which are easily available in villages--Thus, not proving the recoveries nor connecting these to accused person has resulted into being fatal to prosecution case--Appellant acquitted.; Mehar Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab,; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 704
S.302/34--Murder--Acquittal--Motive--As per evidence of complainant wife of deceased that remarriage of widow of brother of deceased to accused was not liked by her deceased husband as he had become incharge of property of brother of deceased--Other two accused were real sons of brother of deceased who were happily staying with accused and their mother--It is well accepted that motive is double edged sward--False complication of accused persons cannot be ruled out in view of such circumstances--Appellant acquitted.; Mehar Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab,; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 704
S.302/34--Murder--Acquittal--Prosecution was not able to prove their case against accused beyond reasonable doubt--Accused acquitted given benefit of doubt.; Mehar Singh & Ors. v State of Punjab,; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 704
S.302/307 read with Section 34--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439(2)--Arms Act, 1959, S.25, 27, 24, 54 & 59--Bail--Cancellation of bail--Application for--Locus Standi--Complainant is entitled to move application for cancellation of bail being an aggrieved person and important witness in case.; Jai Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 693
S.376--Rape--Conviction--Occurrence had taken place on 30.3.1996 at 4.00 A.M.--Report to police made on same day i.e. 30.3.1996 at 1.40 P.M.--Special report sent to Illaqa Magistrate at 3.45 P.M.--Prosecutrix had given her version at earliest--Lodging of FIR and reaching of Special Report prompt and contain truthful version--Rape having been committed proved by medical evidence--Affidavits given by prosecutrix and his father in favour of accused will not absolve him of offence as he made an attempt to prevail upon witnesses to depose in his favour--However, witnesses withstood pressure and testified in Court--Even if a minor litigation was pending between parties same cannot be cause for implicating accused--Conviction upheld--However, sentence of 8 years reduced to 7 years RI as accused as he is facing suffering mental pain and agony of protracted trial for 14 years.; Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 654
S.406 and 498-A--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Abetment to suicide--Compromise between the parties--Accepted--Once the matter has been compromised no useful purpose shall be served, by proceeding with prosecution, as that would amount to sheer wastage of the time of the Court; harassment to the parties; and abuse of the process of Court.; Pawan Kumar @ Pappu & Ors. v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 672
S.409, 418, 420, 468, 477-A r/w Section 34 and 120-B--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Cheating--Complaint--Summoning order--Quashing of--Charging of alleged higher price of the goods supplied; invocation of the bank guarantee, for the recovery of the amount, allegedly due to the SAIL, against the complainant firms; and non-giving of rebate, to the complainant firms, on the goods supplied, by the SAIL, did not amount to deceiving the complainant firms, nor did it amount to the commission of offence of cheating--Allegations, contained in the complaint also, in any way, does not constitute the dishonest misappropriation of any money, by the SAIL--All these matters basically constituted civil dispute, between the parties, and civil suits, are already pending between them--None of the allegations, contained in the complaint, constituted a criminal offence--The complainant firms, converted a dispute of civil nature, into a dispute of criminal nature, so as to put pressure, upon the SAIL, and its officers, who could not be held to be liable vicariously, as per the provisions of the IPC, to come to the terms--The summoning orders and the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, are liable to be quashed.; Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 663
S.420, 467, 468 and 471--Cheating--Conviction--Reduction of sentence--Petitioner charged that he had withdrawn Rs.3500/- from account of ‘R’ by forging his signature on cheque--Said amount already deposited by petitioner with bank--Petitioner in custody since his appeal is dismissed--Keeping in view charges proved against petitioner lesser sentence of imprisonment imposed accordingly.; Rakesh v. State of Haryana ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 645

HINDU WOMEN RIGHT TO PROPERTY ACT, 1937

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.14(2)--Appellant had no locus-standi, to challenge the judgment and decree as the wife of the deceased inheterted the property under the Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937 and become the absolute owner under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act--Competent to alienate the same as she likes--Decree did not require registration as was passed on the basis of legal and valid family settlement also, confer right and title to the party--The finding of the facts recorded by Courts below being based on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence and law on the point do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and warrant no inference by High Court--The substantial question of law in answered, against the appellant and thus appeal in dismissed.; Smt. Birma & Ors. v. Bhal Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 674
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.14(2)--Inheritance--Women Rights--Plaintiff had no locus standi to challenge the decree as the wife of deceased inherited the property under the Hindu Women Right to Property Act and became the absolute owner under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act--Competent to alienate the same, as she like.; Smt. Birma & Ors. v. Bhal Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 674
Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.14(2)--Inheritance--Women Rights--Plaintiff had no locus standi to challenge the decree as the wife of deceased inherited the property under the Hindu Women Right to Property Act and became the absolute owner under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act--Competent to alienate the same, as she like.; Smt. Birma & Ors. v. Bhal Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 674

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956

Family Settlement--Even if, one of the parties to the settlement had no apparent antecedent title, but under the arrangement, the other party relinquishes all its claims or title, in favour of such a person, and acknowledges him, to be the sole owner, then antecedent title was to be presumed, and the family settlement was liable to be upheld.; Smt. Birma & Ors. v. Bhal Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 674
S.14(2)--Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937--Appellant had no locus-standi, to challenge the judgment and decree as the wife of the deceased inheterted the property under the Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1937 and become the absolute owner under Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act--Competent to alienate the same as she likes--Decree did not require registration as was passed on the basis of legal and valid family settlement also, confer right and title to the party--The finding of the facts recorded by Courts below being based on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence and law on the point do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and warrant no inference by High Court--The substantial question of law in answered, against the appellant and thus appeal in dismissed.; Smt. Birma & Ors. v. Bhal Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 674
S.14(2)--Registration Act, 1908, S.17--Decree passed on the basis of a legal and valid family settlement--Does not require registration--Conferred all the rights and title to the other party.; Smt. Birma & Ors. v. Bhal Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 674

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

S.24--Maintenance pendente-lite--An application for the grant of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses during the pendency of the petition under Section 25 after a decree of divorce, is maintainable--Proceedings under Section 25 are part of proceedings under Section 24 of the Act--No prima facie proof of re-marriage of the petitioner--Maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses granted.; Sukhdev Kaur & Ors. v. Sh. Harjinder Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 681
S.24--Maintenance pendente-lite--An application for the grant of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses filed during the pendency of petition under section 25 of the act, after a decree of divorce--Rejection by the trial Court was wrong--Proceeding under section 25 are part of proceedings under Section 24 of the Act and maintainable--Maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses granted to the petitioner.; Sukhdev Kaur & Ors. v. Sh. Harjinder Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 681