Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The Courts below have rightly invoked Section 48 TPA to hold that the transfer prior in time shall have an overriding effect over the transfer which is later in time.”
The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not create a special forum for deciding title disputes or declaring conveyance deeds void merely because the dispute involves a senior citizen. The Court reiterated that property disputes falling outside the limited scope of Section 23 must be adjudicated before the competent civil court.
“Neither the FIR nor the impugned order discloses availability of any tangible material to substantiate the allegation that the appellant had conspired in the preparation of the alleged forged Will, or that the registered sale deed dated 18 December 1998 was executed by him with knowledge that the signatures on the Will were forged.”
“This is a long drawn legal battle between brother and sisters. Although in the past the parties did try to reach to an amicable settlement, yet we are informed that the settlement failed.”
“The sisters executed the Relinquishment Deeds (‘RD’) to release their share in favour of their brother, and there was no economic consideration exchanged at the time of the execution. All the RDs were basically acknowledging the bequest made by the father in favour of his son.”
“It is crystal clear that the Presiding Officer of Civil Court has no basic knowledge of law and she needs training at the Judicial Officers Training and Research Institute (‘JOTRI’) regarding procedural law.”
“A plain reading of Section 17 DV Act confers upon every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. However, it does not create a proprietary interest in the property and is subject to lawful eviction in accordance with due process.”
Allahabad High Court emphasied that the proceedings under Section 27 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be treated as independent or standalone proceedings to result in a decree.
“When the donor and donee, who are father and son, are residing together in residential house owned by the father, it is not expected that after gifting the property by way of Hiba, the father would leave the residence.”
“Merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased, and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. The only requirement is that the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.”
“The stage at which the first suit is, would not be a material consideration in deciding the applicability of the bar under Order II Rule 2. What needs to be looked into is whether the cause of action in both suits is one and the same in substance, and whether the plaintiff is agitating the second suit for claiming a relief that was very well available to him at the time of filing the first suit.”
It was observed that the Complaint/FIR was replete with just one theme i.e. that the appellants are threatening the respondents that they will deny them share in the property. The Complaint/FIR was intended only to further their interest in the civil dispute.
“A reading of the Act makes it clear that the forum under the Act do not have the jurisdiction to decide the title of the property and the purpose of the Act is maintenance of the senior citizen and to ensure their welfare. The question of title, therefore, cannot be decided by forums under the Senior Citizens Act”
The Court noted that pepper spray is undoubtedly a dangerous weapon and refused to quash crime registered against the petitioners for using pepper spray as private defence on respondents during a quarrel.
Raising concerns over the period of delays in hearing appeals, the Karnataka High Court made detailed suggestions for effective functioning of judiciary, and which can reduce work -load of the High Court.
Supreme Court: In a suit for specific performance the Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., explained the
Tripura High Court: T. Amarnath Goud, J. dismissed a second appeal which was filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code,
Supreme Court: While deciding about a century-old land dispute, the Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ., upheld the impugned
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai*, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein
Supreme Court: In a case where the trial court had convicted the accused and imposed death penalty on the very same day,