Apex court digest - Jan.2017 [1]

suit for declaration and recovery of possession by Plaintiff  - declaration that the  agreement  for  sale  dated  16th  October,  1988  was without any authority given to Jinendra Jain.  She also made  a  prayer  for recovery of possession and grant of mesne profits since  possession  of  the
plot had been given by Jinendra Jain to Makhija. ; 
- as counter blast - 
Suit for specific performance by defendant -  for  specific  performance  of  the  agreement  dated  16th October, 1988 entered into by  him  with  Pushparani  through  her  attorney
Jinendra Jain.- The  original  of  this  document [power of attorney]  has  not  been produced by anybody. - trial court decreed the suit of plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the defendant; 
Pending appeal the defendant field filed  an application before the High Court under Order XLI Rule 27  of  the  Code  of Civil Procedure[1] (for short the CPC) for adducing additional evidence. - sought  to  bring  on   record   an application said to have been filed by Jinendra Jain with the BDA on  behalf of Pushparani as her attorney for the grant of a  No  Objection  Certificate
in respect of the suit property -the  High  Court  took  the  view  that  a photocopy produced before it was a photocopy  of  another  photocopy  (filed before the BDA) and as such it could not even  be  considered  as  secondary evidence.  Even otherwise, the  High  Court  concluded  that  there  was  no material to indicate that Jinendra Jain was  authorized  to  enter  into  an
agreement for sale the suit property on behalf of Pushparani.-S.L.P.(C) Nos.524-525 of 2003 which  came  to be  dismissed by this Court on 25th July, 2003.  The review petitions  filed
by Makhija also came to be dismissed by this Court on 9th September, 2003.- both suits results became final - the defendant filed another suit - by producing C.C.Copy of power of attorney - the very same photo copy of photo copy.-for a declaration  that  the  decree  dated  4th October, 1999 passed in favour of Pushparani was obtained  in  a  fraudulent manner and is void and not worthy of being executed and the same was dismissed -the appeal was  dismissed.  The  High Court took the view that the alleged Power of  Attorney  dated  30th  April, 1983 could not be accepted as a valid piece of documentary evidence being  a certified copy of a photocopied document.- Second Appeal alleging fraud played on court by concealing the power of attoreny - obtained decree in her favour - Apex court held that A  mere  concealment or non-disclosure without intent to deceive or a bald  allegation  of  fraud without proof and intent to deceive would not render a decree obtained by  a
party as fraudulent.  To conclude in a blanket manner  that  in  every  case where relevant facts  are  not  disclosed,  the  decree  obtained  would  be fraudulent, is stretching the principle to a vanishing point.-   Fraud not having been proved but merely alleged, we do  not  find  any reason to differ with the judgment and order passed by the  High  Court  and the Trial Court. - Appeal dismissed.

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more