PROPERTY AND LAND LAWS

DELEGATED LEGISLATION AND ITS LIMITS – STATE POWERS – RIGHT OF PRIVATE PLACES TO ERECT ADS 2008 SC

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 05:13:00 PST

Justice A Pasayat, and Justice S Kapadia in a case of Novva ads v. Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply & Another; Reported in AIR 2008 SC 2941, (2008) 8 SCC 42 “It is well settled that a delegated legislation would have to be read in the context of the primary statute under which it is made and, in case of any conflict, it is primary legislation that will prevail.” The State has a full right to regulate the public places, as they vest in the State as trustees for the public. The State can impose such limitations on the user of public places as may be necessary to protect the public generally. Hoardings erected on private places require to be licensed and regulated as they generally abut on and are visible on public roads and public places. Hoarding erected on a private building may obstruct public roads when put up on private buildings; they may be dangerous to the building and to the public; they may be hazardous and dangerous to the smooth flow of traffic by distracting traffic, and their content may be obscene or objectionable. It is, therefore, not correct that hoardings on private places do not require to be regulated by licensing provisions.

QUOTED CITATIONS

A delegated legislation can be declared invalid by the Court mainly on two grounds: firstly, that it violates any provision of the Constitution and secondly, it is violative of the enabling Act. If the delegate which has been given a rule-making authority exceeds its authority and makes any provision inconsistent with the Act and thus overrides it, it can be held to be a case of violating the provisions of the enabling Act but where the enabling Act itself permits ancillary and subsidiary functions of the legislature to be performed by the executive as its delegate, the delegated legislation cannot be held to be in violation of the enabling Act. [See vide State of M.P. v. Bhola (2003) 3 SCC 1]

In St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and Another (2003) 3 SCC 321, this Court has held that: "Delegated legislation permits utilization of experience and consultation with interests affected by the practical operation of statutes. Rules and Regulations made by reason of the specific power conferred by the Statutes to make Rules and Regulations establish the pattern of conduct to be followed. Regulations are in aid of enforcement of the provisions of the Statute. The process of legislation by departmental Regulations saves time and is intended to deal with local variations and the power to legislate by statutory instrument in the form of Rules and Regulations is conferred by Parliament. The main justification for delegated legislation is that the legislature being over burdened and the needs of the modern day society being complex it can not possibly foresee every administrative difficulty that may arise after the Statute has begun to operate. Delegated legislation fills those needs".

WOMEN RIGHT TO ANCESTRAL PROPERTY – WOMEN WHO DIED BEFORE 09-09-2005, WHEN THERE IS NO PENDING CASE – IS NOT A CO-PARCENER – JUSTICE SMT ROSHAN DALVI

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 21:39:51 PDT

READ FULL JUDGMENT
SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J of Bombay High Court, in Sadashiv Sakharam Patil & Ors vs Chandrakant Gopal Desale & Ors Judgment passed on 6 September, 2011 It is stated "Only on and from 9th September 2005 on which date the Amendment Act 39 of 2005 came into force that the daughter who was then living would become a coparcener."

In the case of Sugalabai Vs. Gundappa A. Maradi & Ors. ILR 2007 KAR 4790 the first three words of the aforesaid section came to be considered and interpreted in paragraph 24. It has been observed that the words "on and from" mean "immediately and after" - the commencement of the Act. It is observed that in other words as soon as the amending Act came into force the daughter of the coparcener becomes, by birth, a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. In that case the change in law came into effect during the pendency of the Appeals. It was held that the changed law applied to pending Appeals and consequently, the said Appeal. Hence the daughter in that case was held to be the coparcener. It was observed that there was nothing in the Act which showed that only those born on and after the commencement of the Act would become coparceners. Hence it was held that even a daughter who was born prior to the amendment Act became a coparcener immediately on and after the Amendment Act.

This is the case where the daughters had already expired prior to the coming into force of the amendment Act and prior to any litigation, her son having filed the suit himself. There is nothing in the Section which shows that it would apply to all females retrospectively including a daughter who had expired prior to the coparcener himself, prior to any litigation and prior to the amendment Act itself. If such a daughter was also to be included the entire population would come to be included and the children and grandchildren of all deceased females would claim their share in the estate of their grandparents and great grandparents through their mother. It would have to be seen whether the legislation is capable of such an absurd interpretation.

The words "on" and "from" show and suggest that on a date prior to the Act coming into force the daughter (female) would not be included as a coparcener. Consequently, all daughters born to coparceners in a Hindu joint family living at the time the Act came into force would become coparcener. Daughters (females) who had expired a day prior thereto, unfortunately, could not, because they would be covered by the law prior to the amendment. If such interpretation is not given the words "on" and "from" "the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005" would lose their significance all together and would be rendered otiose.

This aspect is essentially decipherable from the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act cited above. This provision has been specifically enacted to lay down a cutoff date for the daughter of a coparcener to claim her right as a coparcener including her right of partition which is restricted by any disposition or alienation made prior to 20th December 2004. Hence when the Act came into force on 9th September 2004 partition could be claimed by a daughter, if the coparcenery property was not partitioned about nine months prior thereto. This shows that the earlier dispositions and alienations could not be challenged so that whilst the daughter was not a coparcener and certain rights were created they would stand. This is to lend stability to facts and circumstances that may have prevailed in innumerable families having joint family properties prior to the creation of the new right in favour of the daughter. Counsel on behalf of the original Plaintiff sought to show that the proviso has been held to be ultra vires the constitution by the Karnataka High Court which judgment shall be considered presently.

It has been held in the case of Pravat Chandra Pattnaik & Ors. Vs. Sarat Chandra Pattnaik & Anr. AIR 2008 Orissa 133 that the aforesaid Section was enacted for removing the gender discrimination that prevailed leading to oppression and negation of the fundamental right of equality to women and to render social justice by giving them equal status in the Society. The Act came into force from 9th September 2005 and the statutory provisions under Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 thereof created a new right. The provisions are not expressly made retrospective by the legislature. The Act is clear and there is no ambiguity. Therefore, words cannot be interpolated. They do not bear more than one meaning. The Act is therefore, prospective. It creates a substantive right in favour of the daughter. The daughter gets a rights of a coparcener from the date when the amended Act came into force. Consequently, the contention that only the daughters who were born after 2005 would be treated as coparceners was not accepted. It specifically clarifies that the daughter gets a right as a coparcener from the year 2005 whenever she may have been born. She can claim a partition of the property which was not partitioned earlier. However, the judgment specifies a rider. That is in view of the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Act.

"But if the same was effected earlier i.e., prior to 20th December, 2004 the same should not be reopened."

It is, therefore, that it is rightly contended on behalf of the Defendants in the suit that Sakharam's succession opened on 4th October 1995 on that date his daughters Muktabai and/or Narmadabai were not coparceners. His coparcenery property would devolve by survivorship to his only son Sadashiv. The devolution of interest in the coparcenery property as specified in the sub- title/heading of Section 6 would take place only to the son. The words in the sub-title "devolution of interest" also therefore, show that for an interest to devolve upon a person that person must be alive. No devolution of interest in coparcenery property can take place upon a deceased coparcener. On the date of the death of Sakharam his daughters were not even coparceners; they were not even alive. No devolution of interest upon them could take place.

In the case of Sheela Devi & Ors. Vs. Lal Chand & Anr. (2006) 8 SCC 581 the Court considered the estate of one Babu Ram who died in the year 1989. He was one of the 5 sons of Tulsi Ram and one of the members of the coparcenery property. He left behind two sons and three daughters. Babu Ram had inherited 1/5th share of the property of his father and 1/20th share through another brother who had died intestate without issues. The succession between the two brothers and their descendants was in issue. The applicability of the Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was under consideration. Though that is a different matter, observation in paragraph 21 of the judgment relates to the new Act of 2005. It was inter alia observed that the succession was opened in 1989 and hence the provisions of the amendment Act 2005 would have no application. Thereupon Section 6(1) of the old Act of 1956 which related to succession on the death of a coparcener in the event the heirs were only male descendants came to be considered.

My attention has been drawn by Counsel on behalf of the original Plaintiff to the judgment in the case of G. Sekar Vs. Geetha & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC 99 to show that this aspect has been negated in the later judgment of the Supreme Court. Paragraph 49 of the judgment extracts the case of Sheela Devi and the entire paragraph 21 thereof. It is observed that in the case of Sheela Devi the amendment Act had no application as the succession has opened prior to 1989 and hence that contention came to be negatived to consider and interpret the vesting of the right of the coparcener under the old Act. It is, therefore, entirely erroneous to contend upon reading the word "negatived" that the contention that upon the succession opening in 1989 the amendment would have no application was negatived without reading the entire paragraph 49 as a whole. It may be clarified that in the case of Sheela Devi upon the applicability of Section 6 of the old Act, the contention with regard to the applicability of the new Act was negatived and the old Section was considered. Consequently, the fact that succession did open in 1989 when Babu Ram died which did not make the new Act applicable was accepted. We would do well to read the two judgments together.

We are concerned with only the aspect of the applicability of the amendment Act on the date the succession opened. Since it was held that the new Act would not apply when succession opened prior to the date on which it came into force - in that case in 1989 - the Court considered Section 6 of the earlier Act.

In fact the observation in paragraph 8 of the judgment in the case of Miss. R. Kantha, d/o Doddarmaiah Reddy Vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2010 Karnataka 27 to which also my attention has been drawn by Counsel on behalf of the original Plaintiff would be material. It runs thus: "It follows, therefore, that the provisions of the Act can be enforced when the right to succession opens and not before. The petitioner's father is said to be alive and hence her right to succession as a co-parcener has not opened." In that case the Plaintiff/Petitioner applied for partition of the coparcenery property whilst her father was alive under Section 6 of the new Act of 2005 upon the premise that she, as a coparcener, was entitled to all the rights of coparcener including partition. Her father was alive at that time. It was held that Section 6 of the new Act of 2005 was the law relating to intestate succession which regulates the succession of properties of all Hindus by its heading itself which speaks of "devolution" of interest. It was held that "Devolve" means to pass from a person dying to a person living. Hence, the right of a daughter to be treated like a son should be construed only with regard to the share that "devolves" on her when her right to succession opens having regard to the scope and ambit of the Act itself. Hence the judgment in the case of Ms. R. Kanta shows the restrictive operation of Section 6 as applying to devolution of interest upon the death of coparcener only.

FAMILY ARRANGEMENT NEED NOT BE REGISTERED

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:57:17 PDT

Fakirappa Bailappa Kambar v. Kristappa Bailappa Kambar, ILR 1985 KAR 3063. Wherein the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has held as follows: "It is open to the members of the coparcenary to arrange amicably separate possession and enjoyment of the family properties without effecting partition or disruption of the joint family, but at the same time whether co-owners in exclusive possession of different portions of joint family property held the same in the partition or under an arrangement as to the possession, depends upon the intention to the parties which has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. Where direct evidence of intention is available, there is no difficulty in determining the question. In cases where such direct evidence of intention is wanting, the fact that the members have been living separately and enjoying the properties, separately may be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusions but that is not conclusive... where exclusive possession of land by co-owners is not in conformity with the shares of respective parties, generally, the indication is that it is not a partition, but it may be an arrangement not intended to be permanent. Therefore, the fact that the parties were in possession of different properties and different properties have been entered in their individual names in the record or rights, is not by itself sufficient to hold that there was such a partition .... Nothing turns out from the long duration. It depends upon the affinity and nature of relationship of the parties. A provisional arrangement which for some reason continued for a long time without objections does not take away its provisional character and make it permanent. There must be some other evidence indicating that the parties have been living separately under a permanent arrangement or partition".

Dayal, Raghubar Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. Mst Bhagirathi, 1966 AIR 405, 1966 SCR (1) 606 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "There is a strong presumption in favour of Hindu brothers constituting a joint family. It is for the person alleging severance of the Joint Hindu Family to prove it. The mere fact that after the death of the father mutation entry was made in favour of three brothers and indicated the share of each to be one-third, by itself could be no evidence of the severance of the joint family which, after the death of the father consisted of the three brothers who were minors" …. The appellants filed a suit for a declaration that the entry in the name of the respondent in the Jamabandi papers of certain villages was incorrect and alleged that they along with their brother, the husband of the respondent, constituted a joint Hindu family, that their brother died as a member of the joint Hindu family and thereafter his widow- the respondent--lived with the appellants who continued to be owners and possessors of the property in suit, the widow being entitled to maintenance only, and that by mistake the respondent's name was entered in village records in place of the deceased husband. The respondent contested the suit alleging, inter alia, that her husband did not constitute a joint Hindu family with the appellants at the time of his death and also that the suit was barred by time as she had become owner and possessor of the land in suit in 1925 on the death of her husband when the entries in her favour were made, and the suit was brought in 1951. The respondent had admitted in certain documents about the existence of the joint Hindu family or a joint Hindu family firm. The trial Court decreed the suit, which on appeal, the High Court set aside. The High Court did not use the admissions of respondent as she, when in the witness box, was riot confronted with those admissions; and as those documents, if read as a whole did not contain any admissions on behalf of the respondent that there was any joint family still in existence. In appeal by certificate to this Court. HELD : (i) There is a strong presumption in favour of Hindu brothers constituting a joint family. It is for the person alleging severance of joint Hindu family to establish it. The mere fact of the mutation entry being made in favour of the respondent on the death of her husband was no clear indication that there was no joint Hindu family of the appellant, and the respondent's husband at the time of the latter's death.

Fazalali, S Murtaza Supreme Court in Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., 1976 AIR 807, 1976 SCR (2) 202 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as follows : "The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary. The registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and is therefore, not compulsorily registrable. The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same. Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement".

The object of a family arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation or perpetual strife which mars the unity and the solidarity of the family. A family arrangement by which the property is equitably divided between the various contenders so as to achieve an equal distribution of wealth, instead of concentrating tho same in the hands of a few, is a milestone in the ad ministration of social justice. Where by consent of the parties a matter has been settled, the courts have learned in favour of upholding such a family arrangement instead of disturbing it on technical or trivial grounds. Where the courts find that the family arrangement suffers from a legal lacuna or 1 formal defect, the rule of estoppel is applied to shut out the plea of the person who being a party to the family arrangement, seeks to unsettle a settled dispute and claims to revoke the family arrangement under which he has himself enjoyed some material benefits.

(i) The family settled must be bona fide so as to resolve family disputes. (ii) It must be voluntary and not induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; (iii) It may be even oral, in which case and registration is necessary; (iv) Registration is necessary only if the terms are reduced to writing but where the memorandum has been prepared after the family arrangement either for the purpose of record or for information of court, the memorandum itself do not create or extinguish any rights in immovable property and, therefore. does not fall within the mischief of s. 17(2) of the Registration Act and is not compulsorily registrable; (v) The parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest, even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. But, even where a party has no title and the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then, the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld by the courts; (vi) Where bona fide disputes are settled by a bona fide family arrangement. such family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to settlement.

K Ramaswamy, B Hansaria Hon'ble Supreme Court in Digambar Adhar Patil v. Devram Girdhar Patil, AIR 1995 SC 1728, 1995 (2) SCALE 802, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 428 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under Hindu law, it is not necessary that the partition should be effected by a registered partition deed. Even a family arrangement is enough to effectuate the partition between coparceners and to confer right to a separate share and enjoyment thereof.

JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT AIR 1969 SC 78

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:57:50 PDT

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

In Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78, Hidayatullah, C.J., speaking for the Court on an analysis of the various decisions cited before the Court expressing diverse views, laid down as many as seven principles regarding exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court out of which at least two principles being germane to the controversy involved in this petition are excerpted below:

"(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special Tribunal the civil court's Jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not acted In conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

(2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the Court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court."

DECLARATION BY REAL OWNER AGAINST FORGED AND IMPERSONATED SALE DEEDS NOT REQUIRED

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:58:15 PDT

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

Justice S.N.Variava, & Justice V.N.Khare in a case before supreme court, in Shri Ram & Anr. v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge & Ors., Reported in (2001) 3 SCC 24 AIR 2001 SC 1250 “On analysis of the decisions cited above, we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure holder having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the revenue court reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. The position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the revenue court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession.”

WHEN ORIGINAL WILL IS LOST - THE LEGAL EFFECTS

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:58:59 PDT

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGEMENT

BENCH OF SUPREME COURT CONSISTING OF JUSTICE FAZAL ALI, SYED MURTAZA SHINGAL, P.N. IN A CASE OF DURGA PRASAD VS DEVI CHARAN REPORTED IN AIR 1979 SC 145, The correct legal position may be stated thus:

(i) Where a will has been properly executed and registered by the testator but not found at the time of death the question whether the presumption that the testator had revoked the will can be drawn or not will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Even if such a presumption is drawn it is rather a weak one in view of the habits and conditions of our people.

(ii) Such a presumption is a rebuttable one and can be rebutted by the slightest possible evidence, direct or circumstantial. For instance, where it is proved that a will was a strong and clear disposition evincing the categorical intention of the testator and there was nothing to indicate the presence of any circumstance which is likely to bring about a change in the intention of the testator so as to revoke the will suddenly, the presumption is rebutted.

(iii) In view of the fact that in our country most of the people are not highly educated and do not in every case take the care of depositing the will in the bank or with the Solicitors or otherwise take very great care of the will as a result of which the possibility of the will being stolen, lost or surreptitiously removed by interested persons cannot be excluded, the presumption should be applied carefully.

(iv) Where the legatee is able to prove the circumstances from which it can be inferred that there could be absolutely no reason whatsoever for revoking the will or that the Act of revoking the will was against the temperament and inclination of the testator, no presumption of revocation of the will can be drawn.

(v) In view of the express provision of section 70 of the Indian Succession Act the onus lies on the objector to prove the various circumstances, viz., marriage, burning, tearing or destruction of the will.

(vi) When there is no obvious reason or clear motive for the testator to revoke the will and yet the will is not found on the death of the testator it may well be that the will was misplaced or lost or was stolen by the interested persons.

HINDU JOINT FAMILY AND BUSINESS UNDER HINDU FAMILY AND SEPARATE BUSINESS EXPLAINED

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 00:41:05 PST

In a case before Supreme Court in P.S. Sairam vs R.S. Rama Rao, Reported in AIR 2004 SC 1619, It is well-settled that the immovable property which stands in the name of individual member, it is presumed to be belonging to joint family, provided it is proved that the joint family had sufficient nucleus at the time of its acquisition, but no such presumption can be applied to business. …………………. Reference in this connection may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of G.Narayana Raju v.G.Chamaraju & Others 1968(3) SCR 464 wherein in a suit for partition defence was taken that business of Ambika Stores was separate business of defendant as the business did not grow out of joint family funds or at least by efforts of members of joint family which was accepted by the trial court as well as the High Court. When the matter was brought to this Court in appeal, upholding the judgment of the High Court, the Court observed thus at page 466:- "It is well established that there is no presumption under Hindu Law that a business standing in the name of any member of the joint family is a joint family business even if that member is the manager of the joint family. Unless it could be shown that the business in the hands of the coparcener grew up with the assistance of the joint family property or joint family funds or that the earnings of the business were blended with the joint family estate, the business remains free and separate. "Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Amendment Act lays down that for the purposes of this Section, the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of the fact whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. This shows that for determining the interest of a male Hindu, a notional partition has to be assumed and the share in the joint family property, which could have been allocated to him in the notional partition, would devolve upon his heirs.

In the case of V.D.Dhanwatey v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P.Nagpur (1968) 2 SCR 62, a Constitution Bench of this Court was also considering an appeal arising out of an order passed by the High Court on a reference. In that case, joint family funds were invested in a partnership business which enabled karta of the joint family to become a partner and when the remuneration was paid to him, it was assessed as income of the joint family and the view taken was upheld by this Court holding that as investment of the joint family funds in the partnership enabled a karta to become a partner and there being real and sufficient connection between that investment and the remuneration paid to the karta, the same has to be treated as income of the joint family. The Constitution Bench noticed the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Piyare Lal Adishwar Lal (supra) and, while approving the ratio of that case observed that as the remuneration earned by the karta was detrimental to the Hindu Joint Family funds, the High Court was justified in answering the reference against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by holding that remuneration received by the karta was taxable in the hands of Hindu Undivided Family.

EXECUTION OF A WILL IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVED IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 63(C) OF THE SUCCESSION ACT, 1925

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:45:31 PST

The Hon’ble Supreme court of India in Rur Singh (D) Th. LRS. & Ors. Vs Bachan Kaur JUSTICE S.B. Sinha JUSTICE Dr. Mukundakam Sharma New Delhi February 12, 2009, Succession Act, 1925 : S. 63(c) - Execution of a Will is required to be proved in terms of the provisions of s. 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 and s. 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The Will was attested by nine independent persons. Three of them in fact had been examined. The High Court while holding that a doubt is cast on its validity by reason of active participation of one of the sons, failed to notice that nine other independent witnesses attested the Will. Importance cannot be attached to the fact that although the Sarpanch scribed the Will in Urdu, he at more than one place signed in English. In a village, a person may be more proficient in the vernacular language than English although he may be able to sign his name in English. If the Will was otherwise proved to be genuine and the statutory requirements therefor were satisfied, only because the panchayat register was not produced, the same by itself would not lead to the conclusion that the Will would be held to have not been executed, particularly when two courts competent to arrive at findings of fact held it otherwise.

WHEN SUCESSION HAS BEEN ALREADY OPENED IN STATE AMENDMENT, CENTRAL AMENDMENT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY SUCH RIGHT

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 05:20:34 PST

Sheela Devi & Ors. v. Lal Chand & Anr. [(2006 (8) SCC 581], held: "21. The Act indisputably would prevail over the old Hindu law. We may notice that Parliament, with a view to confer right upon the female heirs, even in relation to the joint family property, enacted the Hindu Succession Act, 2005. Such a provision was enacted as far back in 1987 by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The succession having opened in 1989, evidently, the provisions of the Amendment Act, 2005 would have no application.” …….. The principle of law applicable in this case is that so long a property remains in the hands of a single person, the same was to be treated as a separate property, and thus such a person would be entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as the same were his separate property, but, if a son is subsequently born to him or adopted by him, the alienation whether it is by way of sale, mortgage or gift, will nevertheless stand, for a son cannot object to alienations so made by his father before he was born or begotten, But once a son is born, it becomes a coparcenary property and he would acquire an interest therein.

STATUS OF GRANDSON IN CODIFIED HINDU LAW

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 05:20:05 PST

Bhanwar Singh vs Puran Singh AIR 2008 SC 1490 “S. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as it stood at the relevant time, provided for devolution of interest in the coparcenary property. S.8 of the Act lays down the general rules of succession that the property of a male dying intestate devolve according to the provisions of the Chapter as specified in clause (1) of the Schedule. In the Schedule appended to the Act, natural sons and daughters are placed in Class-I heirs but a grandson, so long as father is alive, has not been included. S.19 of the Act provides that in the event of succession by two or more heirs, they will take the property per capita and not per stirpes, as also tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.”

NOTIONAL PARTITION UNDER HINDU LAW

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 05:18:55 PST

Anar Devi and ors vs Parameshwari Devi and ors AIR 2008 SC 3332, “Thus we hold that according to Section 6 of the Act (Hindu Succession Act) when a coparcener dies leaving behind any female relative specified in Class I of the Schedule to the Act or male relative specified in that class claiming through such female relative, his undivided interest in the Mitakshara coparcenary property would not devolve upon the surviving coparcener, by survivorship but upon his heirs by intestate succession. Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Act provides a mechanism under which undivided interest of a deceased coparcener can be ascertained and, i.e., that the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener shall be deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of the property had taken place immediately before his death, irrespective of whether he was entitled to claim partition or not. It means for the purposes of finding out undivided interest of a deceased coparcener, a notional partition has to be assumed immediately before his death and the same shall devolve upon his heirs by succession which would obviously include the surviving coparcener who, apart from the devolution of the undivided interest of the deceased upon him by succession, would also be entitled to claim his undivided interest in the coparcenary property which he could have got in notional partition.

RIGHT OF MAINTENANCE OF HINDU WIFE

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 05:17:52 PST

Supreme Court in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat and another, (1996) 4 SCC 479, has held: "According to the law of land with regard to maintenance there is an obligation on the husband to maintain his wife which does not arise by reason of any contract - expressed or implied - but out of jural relationship of husband and wife consequent to the performance of marriage. .. The obligation to maintain them is personal, legal and absolute in character and arises from the very existence of the relationship between the parties."

B.P. Achala Anand vs S. Appi Reddy & Anr AIR 2005 SC 986, A Hindu wife is entitled to be maintained by her husband. She is entitled to remain under his roof and protection. She is also entitled to separate residence if by reason of the husband's conduct or by his refusal to maintain her in his own place of residence or for other just cause she is compelled to live apart from him. Right to residence is a part and parcel of wife's right to maintenance. The right to maintenance cannot be defeated by the husband executing a will to defeat such a right.

Gift of un-divided share by co-parcener

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 00:40:57 PST

In a case before Supreme Court of India, in Venkata Subbamma vs Rattamma AIR 1987 SC 1775, it is explained in following words “A gift made by the coparcener to his brother should he construed as renunciation of his undivided inter- est in the coparcenary in favour of his brother and his sons, who were the remaining coparceners. A gift was, there- fore, valid and consent of other coparceners was immaterial.” ….. It is, however, settled law that a coparcener may alienate his undivided interest in the coparcenary property for a valuable consideration even without the consent of other coparceners. Such recognition of alienations of copar- cenary property for valuable considerations has been one of gradual growth rounded upon the equity which the purchaser for value has to be allowed to stand in his vendor's shoes and to work out his rights by means of a partition. ….. The personal Law of the Hindus governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law is that a coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property by a will but he cannot make a girt of such interest. ……….. It is a settled law that a coparcener can make a gift of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property to another coparcener or to a stranger with the prior consent of other coparceners. Such a gift will be quite legal and valid…………. The parties are admittedly governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The essence of a coparcenary under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law is community of interest and unity of possession. A member of joint Hindu family has no definite share in the coparcenary property, but he has an undivided interest in the property which is liable to be enlarged by deaths and diminished by births in the family. An interest in the coparcenary property accrues to a son from the date of his birth. His interest will be equal to that of his father.”

Possession of one co-sharer is treated as possession of other co-sharer also.

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 00:39:58 PST

In a case before Supreme Court Vidya Devi vs Prem Prakash AIR 1995 SC 1789, By referring to following citations the point is clarified “In Karbali Begum Vs. Mohd Sayeed (AIR 1981 SC 77), it was held that a co-sharer in possession of the property would be a constructive trustee on behalf of other co-sharer who is not in possession and the right of such co-sharer would be deemed to be protected by the trustee co-sharer. Certain observations of the Privy Council in Coera Vs. Appuhamy (AIR 1914 PC 243, 245-246) may be quoted below:- "Entering into possession and having a lawful title to enter, he could not divest himself of that title by pretending that he had no title as all. His title must have ensured for the benefit of his co-proprietors. The principle recognised by Wood, V.C. in Thomas Vs. Thomas (1856) 25 LJ Ch 159 (161): 110 RR 107 holds good: `Possession is never considered adverse if it can be referred to a lawful title'..... His possession was, in law, the possession of his co-owners. It was not possible for him to put an end to that possession by any secret intention in his mind. Nothing short of ouster or something equivalent to ouster could bring about that result."

CASE AGAINST PUBLIC ROAD ENCROACHMENT NO LIMITATION OR IT IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE SUIT

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 01:46:28 PST

In a case before Supreme court of India in Hari Ram vs Jyoti Prasad & Anr. Decided on 27 January, 2011 By Bench Consisting of: Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, Justice Anil R. Dave, It is held that “Any act of encroachment is a wrong committed by the doer. Such an encroachment when made to a public property like encroachment to public road would be a graver wrong, as such wrong prejudicially affects a number of people and therefore is a public wrong. So long any obstruction or obstacle is created to free and unhindered access and movement in the road, the wrongful act continues thereby preventing the persons to use the public road freely and unhindered. Therefore, that being a continuing source of wrong and injury, cause of action is created as long as such injury continues and as long as the doer is responsible for causing such injury. At this stage it would be apposite to refer to and rely upon Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as follows: "In case of a continuing breach of contract or in case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues."

This court had the occasion to deal with Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the case of Sankar Dastidar v. Shrimati Banjula Dastidar and Anr reported in AIR 2007 SC 514, in which the Supreme Court held that when a right of way is claimed whether public or private over a certain land over which the tort-feaser has no right of possession, the breaches would be continuing, to which the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply. Therefore, in our considered opinion the plea that the suit is barred by limitation has no merit at all. The next plea which was raised and argued vehemently by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant was that the suit was bad for non-compliance of the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the CPC. The said submission is also found to be without any merit as apart from being a representative suit, the suit was filed by an aggrieved person whose right to use public street of 10 feet width was prejudicially affected. Since affected person himself has filed a suit, therefore, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of alleged non-compliance of the provisions of Order I Rule 8 of the CPC.

In this connection, we may appropriately refer to a judgment of the Supreme in Kalyan Singh, London Trained Cutter, Johri Bazar, Jaipur Vs. Smt. Chhoti and Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 396. In paragraph 13 of the said judgment, this Court has held that suit could be instituted by representative of a particular community but that by itself was not sufficient to constitute the suit as representative suit inasmuch as for a representative suit, the permission of Court under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC is mandatory.

In paragraph 14 of the said judgment, it was also held that any member of a community may successfully bring a suit to assert his right in the community property or for protecting such property by seeking removal of encroachment therefrom and that in such a suit he need not comply with the requirements of Order I Rule 8 CPC. It was further held in the said case that the suit against alleged trespass even if it was not a representative suit on behalf of the community could be a suit of this category.

EVERY COURT HAS TO FOLLOW STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT BY SUPREME COURT IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:37:14 PST

In Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain (2009) 10 SCC 415, Supreme Court held that an order of waiving the statutory requirements can be passed only by Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The said power is not vested with any other court.

NO LITIGANT IS HAVING RIGHT TO WATE COURT TIME

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:34:51 PST

In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2687, Supreme Court has observed as under:- “No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.”

In Jai Singh v. Union of India AIR 1977 SC 898, Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue held that a litigant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time. This judgment has subsequently been approved by Supreme Court in principle but distinguished on facts in Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 1996 SC 122; and Arunima Baruah v. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 120.

PROOF OF A DOCUMENT MERE MARKING OF DOCUMENT IS NOT ENOUGH

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:30:41 PST

In Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal (2003) 8 SCC 745, where Supreme Court observed as follows:- "The legal position is not in dispute that mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of its contents. Its execution has to be proved by admissible evidence, that is, by the "evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue".

CHANGES IN HINDU PERSONAL LAWS

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 04:41:40 PST

The President has assented to the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010 on 31st August, 2010 and it is published in the Gazette of India as Act 30 of 2010 on 1st September, 2010. The Act has amended the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

The Act is aimed at bringing gender equality in the matter of guardianship under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and in the matter of giving in or taking in adoption a son or a daughter by father or mother under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Under Clause (b) section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, mother was not included as Guardian along with father. The Law Commission of India in its Eighty-third Report on “the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and certain provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956”, vide paragraph 6.83, had inter alia recommended amendments in clause (b) of section 19 of the said Act to include mother along with the father for the purpose of removing the gender inequality. The recommendations has been accepted and implemented by the enactment.

Clause (c) of section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 incapacitates a married woman from taking in adoption merely on the basis of her marital status and is discriminatory in nature. Therefore, section 8 has been amended to give similar right to a female Hindu, irrespective of her marital status, as that of a male Hindu.

Similarly, sub-section (2) and (3) of section 9 curtails the right of mother to give in adoption if father is alive or is of sound mind or has not renounced the world completely and finally. The rights of father and mother under sub-sections (2) and (3) are discriminatory in nature. Therefore, section 9 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 has been suitably amended to give similar right to a female Hindu.

CONCEPT OF EQUALITY, JURISDICTION, WRONGS AND MISTAKES DISCUSSED WITH CITATIONS BY JUSTICE M SHARMA & JUSTICE A.R. DAVE

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 03:05:43 PST

In Sarup Singh and Anr. Vs. UOI and Anr. – Decided on Nov 25 2010 The Hon’ble Judges of Supreme court: Justice Mukundakam Sharma and Justice Anil R. Dave, delivering judgement in Civil Appeal No. 3568 of 2005 quoted following judgements of supreme court

In Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) Through Lrs. v. Jasjit Singh and Others reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507 this Court stated thus: "18. It is settled law that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction on the subject-matter or on the grounds on which the decree made which goes to the root of its jurisdiction or lacks inherent jurisdiction is a coram non judice. A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very authority of the court to pass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party.............."

In the case of Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 500 this Court described the scope of Section 152, C.P.C. thus: "6. Section 152 CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders of errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the court or the tribunal becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. It implies that the section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the province of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC even after passing of effective orders in the lis pending before them. No court can, under the cover of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order.............."

There are number of decisions of this Court wherein it has also been held that a wrong judgment given by the High Court cannot be taken as precedence for perpetrating such wrong. In the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Ram Kumar Mann reported in (1997) 3 SCC 321 held as follows: - "3. The question, therefore, is whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in law. It is seen that the respondent had voluntarily resigned from the service and the resignation was accepted by the Government on 18-5-1982. On and from that date, the relationship of employer and the employee between the respondent and the State ceased and thereafter he had no right, whatsoever, either to claim the post or a right to withdraw his resignation which had already become effective by acceptance on 18-5-1982...The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong to perpetrate, an employee, after committing mis-appropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under Article 14 for reinstatement? The answer is obviously "No".. A wrong decision by the Government does not give a right to enforce the wrong order and claim parity or equality. Two wrongs can never make a right. Under these circumstances, the High Court was clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus with all consequential benefits."

In the case of State of Bihar and Others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94 this Court held thus: - "30. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner... Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed: (SCC p. 465, para 9) "Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination."

Again in Secy., Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain reported in 1996 (7) SCALE 135 this Court considered the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution and reiterated its earlier position regarding the concept of equality holding: (SCC pp. 51-52, para 28) "Suffice it to hold that the illegal allotment founded upon ultra vires and illegal policy of allotment made to some other persons wrongly, would not form a legal premise to ensure it to the respondent or to repeat or perpetuate such illegal order, nor could it be legalised. In other words, judicial process cannot be abused to perpetuate the illegalities. Thus considered, we hold that the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellants to allot the land to the respondents."

CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ON GOVERNMENT LAND ENCROACHERS - FOLLOW PROCEDURE- JUSTICE N. KUMAR

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 09:57:09 PST

Smt. Lalitha Sastry Vs. State of Karnataka ILR 2008 Kar 4520 Honourable Judges: N. Kumar, J. Date of Judgement: 22/09/2008 From the aforesaid circular it is clear the Government is now convinced that an opportunity should be given to all those alleged encroachers of Government land before any proceedings are initiated under Section 192A of the Act. In fact it stipulates a procedure under which a show cause notice is to be given calling upon those alleged encroachers to file their objections within 15 days. If no objections are received authorities are called upon to visit the spot, conduct a Mahazar in the presence of the villagers, obtain their signatures and thereafter to initiate criminal proceedings if they are satisfied that there is encroachment. In the event of alleged encroachers producing documents to examine the same and only in the event of the said documents are found to be fabricated or duplicate, to initiate proceedings under Section 192A of the Act. In fact the said procedure contemplated by the Government satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice, an opportunity is given to these persons to realise whether they have occupied a Government land and if they are convinced to surrender possession to avoid criminal prosecution.

IMPORTANCE OF SOURCE OF TITLE RATHER THAN LONG ENTRY IN REVENUE RECORDS - JUSTICE K RAMANNA

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 09:54:52 PST

Boramma Vs. Srinivasa and Others 2009 (2) KarLJ 385 Honourable Judges: K. Ramanna, J. Date of Judgement: 09/01/2009, Regular Second Appeal No. 381 of 2002, Of course, the revenue documents disclose that since from 1981-82 the name of plaintiff 2 and plaintiff 1 appear in revenue records as possessor of suit lands. But these revenue records cannot be termed as title deeds to confer on them the right of ownership over suit properties. The plaintiffs have not placed on record any other deed or document to prove the source of title. Further, they have not disclosed any particulars for change of khata in the name of plaintiffs. No iota of evidence is placed on record to show why her name is entered in the revenue records and how she become owner of the suit property and whether there was any consideration passed therein or the same was by way of any family arrangement. Such things has not been pleaded nor proved before Court. Mere entry in the revenue records will not confer any title to the plaintiffs and on the basis of the said entries, the plaintiffs cannot be termed as owners of suit properties. State of Himachal Pradesh v Keshav Ram and Others, AIR 1997 SC 2181: (1996)11 SCC 257: ILR 1998 Kar. 1 (SC), it is held as under: "Entry in a revenue record or papers by no stretch of imagination can form the basis for declaration of title". Further, in case of Smt. Sawami v Smt. Inder Kaur and Others, AIR 1996 SC 2823: (1996)6 SCC 223 wherein it is held thus: "Mutation of name in revenue records, effect, held, does not create or extinguish the title nor has any presumptive value on title, it only entities the person concerned to pay land revenue".

CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 04:16:20 PDT

The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353 held as under: The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of Justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

In Ramlal, & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [(1962) 2 SCR 762], it was laid down that in showing sufficient cause to condone the delay, it is not necessary that the applicant/appellant has to explain whole of the period between the date of the judgment till the date of filing the appeal. It is sufficient that the applicant/appellant would explain the delay caused by the period between the last of the dates of limitation and the date on which the appeal/application is actually filed. What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules.

In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra [AIR 1976 SC 237], Supreme Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystalized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction.

In Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram [AIR 1917 PC 156] it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal.

In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari & Ors. [(1969) 1 SCR 1006], a Bench of three Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.

In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 694] which is a case of negligence of the counsel which misled a litigant into delayed pursuit of his remedy the default in delay was condoned.

In Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1970) 2 SCR 90], Supreme Court had held that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is always a question whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a devise tn cover an ulterior purpose. in that case it was held that the mistake committed by the counsel was bona fide and it was not tainted by any mala fide motive.

In State of Kerala v. E.K. Kuriyipe & Ors. [(1981) Supp. SCC 72], it was held that whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay is a question of fact dependant upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

In Smt. Milavi Devi v. Dina Nath [(1982) 3 SCR 366], it was held that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. This Court under Art.136 can reassess the ground and in appropriate case set aside the order made by the High Court or the Tribunal and remit the matter for hearing on merits. It was accordingly allowed, delay was condoned and case was remitted for decision on merits.

In O.P. Kathpaliaa v. Lakhmir Singh (dead) & Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 66], a Bench of three Judges had held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. Delay was accordingly condoned.

In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantrag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107], a Bench of two Judges considered the question of the limitation in an appeal filed by the State and held that Section 5 was enacted in order to enable the court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression "sufficient cause is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of the justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. This Court reiterated that the expression "every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. Judiciary is not respected on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the State which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant. The delay was accordingly condoned. Experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery ( no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. The State which represent collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The courts, therefore, have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression of sufficient cause. Merit is preferred to scuttle a decision on merits in turning down the case on technicalities of delay in presenting the appeal. Delay was accordingly condoned, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

In Smt. Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra [(1987) Supp. SCC 338], Supreme Court had held that the court should not adopt an injustice- oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appeal was allowed, the delay was condoned and the matter was remitted for expeditious disposal in accordance with law.

In G. Ramegowda, Major & Ors, v. Spl, Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore [(1988) 2 SCC 142], it was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel could be laid. The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for Governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. It was, therefore, held that in assessing what constitutes sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the consideration that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Government decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have a little play at the joints'. Due recognition of these limitations on Governmental functioning - of course, within reasonable limits - is necessary if the judicial approach is not to be rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision making process. The delay of over one year was accordingly condoned.

In Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 174], a Bench of three Judges of Supreme Court held that the bona fides of the parties are to be tested on merits and the delay of 1146 to 1079 days was not condoned on the ground that the parties approached the court after decision on merits was allowed in other cases by this Court. Therefore, it was held that it did not furnish a ground for condonation of delay under Section 5.

In Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [(1993) 1 SCC 572], it was held that it is not at all a fit case where in the anxiety to render justice to a party so that a just cause is not defeated, a pragmatic view should be taken by the court in considering sufficing cause for condonation of the delay under Section 5. It was held that when the party has come with a false plea to get rid of the bar of limitation, the court should not encourage such person by condoning the delay and result in the bar of limitation pleaded by the opposite party. This Court, therefore, refused to condone the delay in favour of the party who came forward with false plea.

In M/s. Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [(1993) Supp. 1 SCS 487], a Bench of three Judges held that delay caused in filing the appeal due to fluctuation in laying down the law was held to be a sufficient cause and delay of 14 days was condoned.

In Ram Krishan & Anr. v. U.P. State Roadways Transport Corpn. & Anr. [(1994) Supp. 2 SCC 507], Supreme Court had held that although the story put forward by the applicant for not filing the application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act within the period of limitation was not found convincing but keeping in vies the facts and circumstances and cause of justice, the delay was condoned and the appeal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to dispose it on merits.

In Warlu v. Gangotribai & Anr. [(1995) Supp. 1 SCC 37] a three-Judge Bench condoned delay of 11 years in filing the special leave petition.

Following these Obove judgments, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1623 , has held as under: It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court - be it by private party or the State - are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the cours or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Considered from this perspective, it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned. The High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.

MUSLIM LAW OF SUCCESSION TO PROPERTY

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:51:05 PDT

In a case before Karnataka High Court in Smt. Ashabi vs Smt. Faziyabi And Ors. (ILR 2004 KAR 3599) "A person who according to Muslim law is an heir of the deceased remains so and gets his legal due. He or she cannot be excluded either by other heirs and survivors of the deceased or even under a specific direction left in that behalf by the deceased himself. One can be excluded from inheritance only under a rule of Muslim law, if applicable in India. It is also well settled that only that relative can be an heir of the deceased who is alive at the moment of the latter's death. A person who died before the deceased cannot be his heir……………….It is a well- recognised proposition of law that the estate of a deceased Mohammedan devolves on his heirs in specific shares at the moment of his death."

The Shariat Act was passed by the Central Legislature in 1937. It became for the first time extended to Part "B" States by virtue of the Central Act 48 of 1959 (which came into force on February 1, 1960), called the Miscellaneous Personal Laws (Extension) Act, 1959, which amended its extent clause in such a way as to apply the statute to whole of India except to Jammu and Kashmir. The principal operative section of the said Act is section 2, which reads : "2. Notwithstanding any custom or usage to the contrary, in all question regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of Personal Law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubarrat, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and trust properties and wakfs (other then charities and charitable institutions and charitable and religious endowments) the rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)."

Supreme Court in Mohammad Yunus v. Syed Unnissa. AIR 1961 SC 808, Interpreting the force or effect of the words in section 2 of the Shariat Act to the effect that in all matters enumerated therein, the rule of decision in cases where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law, their Lordships state that the statute would apply not only to suits and proceedings instituted subsequent to the coming into force of the statute but also to suits and proceedings pending on that date whether in original courts or tribunals or in appeal.

Inheritance is an integral part of Shariah Law and its application in Islamic society is a mandatory aspect of the divine teaching of Islam. Muslims inherit from each other as stated in the Qur'an: “ لِّلرِّجَالِ نَصيِبٌ مِّمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالأَقْرَبُونَ وَلِلنِّسَاء نَصِيبٌ مِّمَّا تَرَكَ الْوَالِدَانِ وَالأَقْرَبُونَ مِمَّا قَلَّ مِنْهُ أَوْ كَثُرَ نَصِيبًا مَّفْرُوضًا ” {“4:7 There is a share for men and a share for women from what is left by parents and those nearest related, whether, the property be small or large - a legal share.“} [An-Nisa 4:7] Hence, for Muslims in India there is a legal share for relatives of the deceased in his estate/property. When a person dies there are four rights that need to be performed his property:
1. Pay his/her funeral and burial expenses
2. Pay his/her debts
3. Execute his Will/bequest (max 1/3 of his/her property)
4. Distribute remainder of his/her estate/property according to Shariah Law

In relation to inheritance, Mohammad said: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: “The Prophet said, "Give the Fara'id (the shares of the inheritance that are prescribed in the Qur'an) to those who are entitled to receive it. Then whatever remains, should be given to the closest male relative of the deceased." Thus it can be seen that under Muslim Law no stranger outside the family shall succeed under Shariat Law of Inheritance or Under Quranic Commands.

OWNERSHIP OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY

noreply@blogger.com (Sridhara Babu) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:51:05 PDT

AIR 2005 SC 3708 Union of India vs Pramod Gupta (D) by LRs. & Ors.. "Ownership" in respect of an immovable property would mean a bundle of rights. Only a proprietor of a surface land will have the sub-soil right. But such rights may also have certain limitations. Tenure holder or sub-tenure holder and / or an agricultural tenant created for carrying out agricultural operation per se would not become the owner of the sub-soil right. The right granted in favour of such sub-tenure holder, tenure holder or the agricultural tenant would, thus, depend upon the concerned statute and/ or the relevant covenants contained in the grant.