Apex court digest - Jan.2017 [4],

Or.39, rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. - suit for injunction - interim application for interim injunction - Trial court rejected - High court granted - Apex court set aside the High court and restore the trial court order-  The Plaintiff along with his Maternal grand-mother  are in use, occupation and possession of the  premises-The Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are the Paternal uncles  of  the Plaintiff’s mother -Defendant No.6,  is a son of the Defendant No.5 and Defendant No.4 is the sister  of  Defendants1,2,3 and 5 -Mohammed Ali H. Tejani (called the said Deceased)  was  a  Co-owner along with Defendant Nos.1 to 5 in respect of a Plot of  Land  bearing Plot No.202-D, along with the building comprising of ground with  one  upper floor-The said deceased  executed a Will dated 28th September 1991 under which  the  deceased  bequeathed  his 1/7th share in the plot of land in favour of the Defendant Nos.1 to  5.  The said Will is probated in the High Court - the maternal grand-mother of the respondent  was merely allowed to  use  and occupy the suit premises by the defendants out of love and sympathy  without any fees or compensation -In  fact the suit does not claim any independent right either of his grand-mother  or of the respondent himself.- Apex court held that An occupation of the property by a person as  an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will  not  amount  to actual physical possession - (1) No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed  to  stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of  years  or  decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property.(2) Caretaker, watchman  or  servant  can  never  acquire  interest  in  the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or  servant  has
to give possession forthwith on demand.(3) The  courts  are  not  justified  in  protecting  the  possession  of  a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to  live  in  the  premises
for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant.(4) The protection of the court can only  be  granted  or  extended  to  the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or  license agreement in his favour. (5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal  only  on  behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest  whatsoever  for  himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession.” Thus, a person holding the premises gratuitously or in  the  capacity  as  a caretaker or a servant would not  acquire  any  right  or  interest  in  the property and even long possession in that capacity  would  be  of  no  legal
consequences. In the circumstances City Civil Court was right and  justified in rejecting the prayer for interim injunction and that decision  ought  not to have been set aside by the High Court. We therefore,  allow  the  appeal, set aside the judgment under appeal and restore the Order  dated  29.04.2013 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No.344 of 2013  in
Suit No.408 of 2013.

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