Download Law of Contracts formation of contracts an and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
I
8 /’;
TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY
Vol: XIV Part: 8 August, 201 9
IMPORTANT CASE LAW
HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI No.30/95, P.S.K.R. Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028 Phone Nos. 044– 24958595 / 96 / 97 / 98 Fax : (044) 24958595 Website : www.tnsja.tn.gov.in E-Mail: tnsja.tn@nic.in/tnsja.tn@gmail.com
REGIONAL CENTRE, COIMBATORE No.251, Scheme Road, Race Course, Coimbatore - 641 018. Telephone No: 0422 - 2222610/ E-Mail:tnsja.rc.cbe@gmail.com
REGIONAL CENTRE, MADURAI Alagar Koil Road, K.Pudur, Madurai - 625 002. Telephone No: 0452 - 2560807/ E-Mail:tnsja.rc.mdu@gmail.com
I
IN INDDEEXX
SS.. NNoo.. IMIMPPOORRTTAANNTT CCAASSEE LLAAWW
PPAAGGEE NNoo..
- Supreme Court – Civil Cases II
- Supreme Court – Criminal Cases IV
- Madras High Court – Civil Cases V
- Madras High Court – Criminal Cases VII
III
S.
No
CAUSE TITLE CITATION JUDGMENTDATE OF SHORT NOTES
Pg. No.
Arshnoor Singh vs. Harpal Kaur & others
2019 (5) CTC
Hindu Law – Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956) – succession opening prior to 1956 governed by old Hindu Mitakshara Law – whenever male ancestor inherits property from paternal ancestors upto 3 degrees above, then his male legal heirs upto 3 degrees below get equal right as coparcener in that property – post-1956, property inherited from paternal ancestors becomes self-acquired property, does not remain Coparcenary property – if succession opened in 1951 shares allotted in Partition to Coparceners continued to remain Coparcenary property qua their male descendants.
Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & another vs. Axis Bank Limited & another.
2019 (7) SCC
Order 7, Rule 11(d), Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 11(a) to (f) of Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of a Plaint in part/only against one of the defendants in exercise of power under Order 7, Rule 11(d) – impermissibilty of.
Sopanarao & another vs. Syed Mehmood & others
2019 (7) SCC 76 03.07.
Art.65 or Art.58 of Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 5 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for declaration of title and possession based on title – Limitation period applicable would be that under Art. and not Art.58 – Distinguished from case where only relief sought is that of declaration.
IV
SUPREME COURT - CRIMINAL CASES
S. No CAUSE TITLE^ CITATION^
DATE OF JUDGMENT SHORT NOTES^
Pg. No
Bikash Ranjan Rout vs. State through the Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi.
MLJ(Crl) 86 (SC)
Section 173 and 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Discharge of accused – Further investigation – The Magistrate cannot suo moto direct for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC or direct the reinvestigation into a case at the post-cognizance stage.
Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and another
MLJ(Crl) 71(SC) :: 2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 765 :: 2019(6) SCC 203
Section 284, 285 and 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, - Summon to Foreign witness – Video Conferencing – The witness is residing in foreign country, a viable alternative for his examination is through video conferencing
Kumar Ghimirey vs. State of Sikkim
2019 (2) SCC
(Cri) 758 :: 2019(6) SCC 166
Sections. 386, 374 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Powers of Appellate court therein to enhance sentence – proper exercise of – Principles restated – enhancement of sentence by High Court without giving notice to accused – not proper.
Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & another vs. State of Gujarat
2019 (2) SCC
(Cri) 729 :: 2019 (5) SCC 802
Sections 302, 324 and 96 to 106 (Section 300 exceptions 2 & 4) of Indian Penal Code – Private defence - murder by stabbing with spears – injured witness – complainant party unarmed – right of private defence, not established.
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, CBI vs. M.Subrahmanyam
2019 (2) SCC
(Cri) 796 :: 2019 (6) SCC 357
Criminal Trial – Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Practice and Procedure - A procedural lapse cannot be placed on a par with what is or may be substantive violation of the law.
Sasikala Pushpa & others vs. State of Tamil Nadu
2019 (2) SCC
(Cri) 826 :: 2019 (6) SCC 477
Sections 195(1)(b) and 340 of Criminal Procedure Code – The court must satisfy itself as to giving a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC – when is prosecution under Section 340 to be launched – principles summarized.
Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab
2019 (2) SCC
(Cri 883 : 2019 (6) SCC 638
Section 319 of Criminal Procedure - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence – exercise of
VI
S.
No
CAUSE TITLE CITATION
DATE OF
JUDGMENT
SHORT NOTES
Pg. No
Commissioner, West Arni Panchayat Union, Arni Post, Thiruvannamalai District. vs. St.Joseph Social Welfare Centre, Rep by Brother-Superior Rev. Brother Lourduraj & 3 others
MWN(Civil) 860
Section 126 of Transfer of Property, 1882 (4 of 1882) - Conditional gift and cancellation thereof – condition not complied – donor revoked gift – unilateral cancellation by donor is valid.
Manickam.S. vs. Chinnapandiyan
2019 (3) TLNJ
Trial of Civi Suit - Suit for Money based on Pronote in the stage of arguments – seeking to reopen the case to summon the witness. Trial completed and posted for arguments – defendant filed application to reopen the case to summon the witness regarding dispute in signature – dismissed
Paul Marie Josephine vs. Louise Victorine Esperance Lafontaine
2019 (5) MLJ
Order 7 Rule 11of Civil Procedure Code – Striking of Plaint – Cause of Action – The defendant seeking to strike off the suit proceedings on the ground that the Plaint averments did not constitute cause of action - Maintainability
T.K.K.N.N.Vysya Charities, Chennai vs. Global Plastics
2019 (3) LW
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Possession is admitted – notice was issued under Section 106 - when validity of notice is not disputed it cannot be said that notice was not proper
- issue under Section. 106 not a triable issue at all in view of the admission made in the trial
T.Ravichandran vs. K.Kasthuri & 6 others
2019 (3) TLNJ 5 03.06.
Section 40 of Court Fees Act, 1870 – Where without seeking to set aside of Sale and by not paying Court Fees under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, Plaintiff cannot be permitted to seek to setting aside the sale deed by way of declaration of Title
VII
MADRAS HIGH COURT – CRIMINAL CASES
Sl. No CAUSE TITLE CITATION DATE OF JUDGMENT SHORT NOTES^
Pg. No
K.G.Denim Finance Limited, Coimbatore, Rep by D.Ramesh vs. Salem Textiles Limited & another
MLJ(Crl) 188
Sections 138 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Dishonour of Cheque – Novation – Plea of Novation not pleaded by accused - when accused pleaded that liability had already been discharged, question of Novation for new contract substituting old contract did not arise.
Karthikeyan & others vs. State, Rep by Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police station, Krishnagiri District
2019(3) M
LJ(Crl) 394
Sections 216 and 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Conditions requested is to recall of prosecution witnesses by the prosecution for further examination.
R.Kiruba Kanmani vs. L.Rajan
LW(Crl) 130
Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code - Section 20(3) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act - Unmarried daughter – Maintenance by father – scope.
Dr.Sunder vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Law and Order, Chennai.
MLJ(Crl)
Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Eschewing of Evidence – Failure to cross examine – Whether evidence recorded from witness by competent court be eschewed at later point of time – whether lower court right in closing evidence of PW2 to PW4 on ground that effective steps were not taken to pay process fee to issue summons to witnesses.
Dharmarajan & 3 others vs. The State, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station, Thanjavur District.
2019 (2) TLNJ
49 (Criminal)
Sections 341, 365, 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 6 & 8 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,– Complaint of rape and outrage the modesty of victim against accused – testimony of the P.W. can also be the sole basis to record conviction and sentence – Cross- examination was deferred on the petition filed by the accused and thereafter, P.W.2 not offer herself for cross- examination – effect of
Manickaraj vs. State, Rep by Inspector of Police, Alwarthiunagari Police Station, Thoothukodi District
MWN(Cr.) 487 (DB)
Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence – Motive – of no significance, when Prosecution case based on Eyewitness account
1
SUPREME COURT – CIVIL CASES
2019 (4) CTC 122
G.Ratna Raj(Decd) by LRs. Vs. Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd., & another Date of Judgment: 01.02.
Order 9, Rule 13 & order 17, Rules 2 & 3 of Code of Civil Procedure Defendant set ex parte after cross-examining Plaintiff and before leading their evidence. Preliminary Decree passed, but defendant remained ex parte – Defendants subsequently filed application under Order 9, Rule 13 for setting aside exparte Preliminary Decree – Single Judge of High Court dismissed Application on ground that the Preliminary Decree passed was not exparte Decree – On Appeal, Division Bench allowed Application with costs – Preliminary Decree was exparte Decree – case in hand would not fall under Explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 – In order to attract explanation, party should have led evidence or should have led substantial part of evidence – Defendants in present case not led any evidence – B.Janakiramaiah Chetty vs. A.K.Parthasarthi, 2003 (2) CTC 242(SC), followed.
2019(5) CTC 97
A.Sarojinidevi, Rep by her authorized Power Agent, A.Raja @ Rajaram vs. R.Arumugam
Date of Judgment: 25.03.
Order 3, Rules 1 & 2, Order 7, Rule 14(1) of Code of Civil Procedure – Rule 16 of Civil Rules of Practice – Section 32 of Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961) – Party-in-person appeared before Trial Court and conducted litigation – Objection raised for appearance of “Party-in-person”, is legally unsustainable. As per the provisions of Order 3, Rule 1, of CPC, any appearance by a Party-in- person either by themselves or through the Power Agent has been recognized by the Code of Civil Procedure. Further the Advocates Act also recognized this deviation from the usual Rule. Today parties appear in person before the Consumer Court, Family Court etc., and they also appear before the High Courts in Public Interest Litigation. The Courts have recognized appearance by parties or their agents subject to the permission of the court and on condition that they would not act adverse to the interest of their Principal. In the instant case the party has appeared so in the trial court without any objection from the respondent herein and the Revision is also filed so and the provisions of Rule 16 of the Civil Rules of Practice has been complied with. Therefore, the objection of the Respondent that the Party-in-person cannot enter appearance and address the court cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected.
2
2019 (6) SCC 82
Jagdish Prasad Patel(Decd) through LR’s & another vs. Shivnath & others Date of Judgment: 09.04.
Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for declaration of title over immovable property – burden of proof – Plaintiff required to discharge his burden independent of case of defendant. In the suit for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiff could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the defendants. The burden is on the plaintiffs to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for a decree for declaration. The plaintiffs have neither produced the title document i.e, patta-lease which the plaintiffs are relying upon nor proved their right by adducing any other evidence to discharge his burden.
2019 (6) SCC 387**
Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More & others
Date of judgment:07.05.
Order 9, Rule 13 and Section 96(2) of Civil Procedure Code – setting aside of Exparte decree – scope and operation of Or.9 R.13 and S. 96(2) and duties of court when deciding cases under these provisions, explained. It is to be pointed out that the scope of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and Section 96(2) CPC are entirely different. In an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the Court has to see whether the summons were duly served or not or whether the defendant was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. If the Court is satisfied that the defendant was not duly served or that he was prevented for “sufficient cause”, the court may set aside the exparte decree and restore the suit to its original position. In terms of Section 96(2) CPC, the appeal lies from an original decree passed ex parte. In the regular appeal filed under Section 96(2) CPC, the appellate court has wide jurisdiction to go into the merits of the decree. The scope of enquiry under two provisions is entirely different. Merely because the defendant pursued the remedy under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, it does not prohibit the defendant from filing the appeal if his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
2019 (5) CTC 110 Arshnoor Singh vs. Harpal Kaur & others Date of judgment:01.07.**
Hindu Law – Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956) – Ancestral property – Character of property after Partition – Whether Coparcenary or self-acquired. If succession opened under the old Hindu Law, i.e, prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the parties would be governed by Mitakshara Law. The property inherited by a male Hindu from his Paternal Male Ancestor shall be coparcenary property in his hands vi-+s-a-vis his male descendants upto three degrees below him. The nature of property will remain as coparcenary property even after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
4
SUPREME COURT – CRIMINAL CASES
2019 (3) MLJ (Crl) 86 (SC) Bikash Ranjan Rout vs. State through the Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi. Date of Judgment:16.04.
Section 173 and 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Discharge of accused – Further investigation – The Magistrate cannot suo moto direct for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. or direct the reinvestigation into a case at the post- cognizance stage. The Magistrate could not suo moto direct for further investigation under Section 173(8) or direct re-investigation into case at post-cognizance stage, more particularly when, in exercise of powers under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, the Magistrate discharges accused. However, Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. confers power upon officer-in-charge of police station to further investigate and submit evidence, oral or documentary, after forwarding report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is always open for investigating officer to apply for further investigation, even after forwarding the report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C and even after the discharge of the accused. However, the aforesaid shall be at the instance of the investigation officer/Police Officer-in-charge and the magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo moto pass an order for further investigation/re-investigation after he discharges the accused.
2019 (3) MLJ (Crl) 71(SC) Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and another Date of Judgment:16.04.
Section 284, 285 and 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, - Summon to Foreign witness – Video Conferencing – The witness is residing in foreign country a viable alternative for his examination. Where the witness is residing in foreign country, in order to avoid inconvenience to the witness as also to the parties, issuing of commission and recording his evidence through video-conferencing appears to be a viable alternative; and the Trial Court need to take all the requisite steps so as to ensure that his evidence comes on record with least inconvenience and/or burden to the parties and the witness.
2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 758 :: 2019(6) SCC 166 Kumar Ghimirey vs. State of Sikkim Date of Judgment: 22.04.
Sections. 386, 374 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Powers of Appellate court therein to enhance sentence – proper exercise of – Principles restated – enhancement of sentence by High Court without giving notice to accused – not proper. As per Section 386 Clause(b) Cr.P.C. in an appeal from a conviction although the appellate court can alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same. Under Section 386(b)(iii), in an appeal from a conviction, for enhancement of sentence, the
5
appellate court can exercise the power of enhancement. The appellate court in an appeal for enhancement, can enhance the sentence also. The proviso to Section 386, further provides that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. The judgment of the High Court in so far as it enhanced the sentence from seven years to ten years is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed. The judgment of the High Court to the extent it has enhanced the sentence from seven years to ten years is set aside.
2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 729 :: 2019 (5) SCC 802
Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & another vs. State of Gujarat
Date of Judgment:23.04.
Sections 302, 324 and 96 to 106 (Section 300 exceptions 2 & 4) of Indian Penal Code – Private defence - murder by stabbing with spears – injured witness – complainant party unarmed – right of private defence, not established. There is no evidence on the part of the accused that the deceased were armed with any weapon in the first version, when they lodged a report. The right of private defence is not available when the alleged assailants are unarmed. The right of private defence to protect the person and the property. In such right, the person cannot cause more harm than what is necessary for the protection of the person and the property. It has been held in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jangir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2019 (13) SCC 813), case that in order to succeed in such plea of private defence, it must be proved that the right of private defence extended to cause death. Since the deceased were not armed, therefore the appellants are not entitled to the right of private defence.
2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 796 :: 2019 (6) SCC 357
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, CBI vs. M.Subrahmanyam
Date of Judgment:07.05.
Criminal Trial – Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Practice and Procedure - A procedural lapse cannot be placed on par with what is or may be substantive violation of the law. The failure to bring the authorization on record, as observed, was more a matter of procedure, which is but a handmaid of justice. Substantive justice must always prevail over procedural or technical justice. To hold that failure to explain delay in a procedural matter would operate as res judicata will be a travesty of justice considering that the present is a matter relating to corruption in public life by holder of a public post. The rights of an accused are undoubtedly important, but so is the rule of law and societal interest in ensuring that an alleged offender be subjected to the laws of the land in the larger public interest. To put the rights of an accused at a higher pedestal and to make the rule of law and societal interest in prevention of crime, subservient to the same cannot be considered as dispensation of justice. A balance therefore has to be struck. A procedural lapse cannot be placed on a par with what is or may be substantive violation of the law.
7
MADRAS HIGH COURT – CIVIL CASES
2019 ACJ 1727
National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. P.Suresh & others
Date of Judgment: 19.09.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 147(1) & 163-A r/w Second Schedule( as amended by notification dated 22.05.2018) - The amendment to the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act is long after the accident – Any social welfare legislation can be interpreted to the extent of benefiting the meek and poorer section of the society. The compensation payable on account of the death of the deceased is concerned, the apportionment of liability would be that, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is payable by the insurance company as per the amended second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the amendment is long after this accident and though the amendment is not made retrospectively applicable, still any social welfare legislation can be interpreted to the extent of benefiting the meek and poorer section of the society. The remaining compensation is ordered to be paid by the government.
2019 ACJ 1772
I.Pavithra vs. R.Alan Joy & another
Date of Judgment: 28.09.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 - Quantum – Injury – Principles of assessment – loss of earning capacity – the principles to assess loss of earning capacity due to permanent disablement. The sum and substance of the principles on which the courts have decided the loss of earning power is as follows:
- The quantum of permanent disability caused by the injuries is to be essentially decided by the medical professionals.
- The effect of such permanent disability on the earning power of the victim will have to be decided by the Tribunals and Courts.
- While deciding the said loss of earning power, the Courts and Tribunals are expected to arrive at just and reasonable compensation.
- The basis for calculation of reasonable compensation would be the extent to which the earning power is reduced due to the injuries caused. This will however involve some guesswork and there cannot be a precise mathematical formula in deciding it.
- The nature of the work or occupation or profession of the victim will definitely have a direct bearing on the loss of earning power due to the permanent disability caused.
8
2019 (2) MWN(Civil) 868 Thirthagiri vs. Chinnathambi Gounder Date of Judgment: 01.02.
Sections 8 & 9 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956) - Rule of succession among collaterals – based on proximity of relationship to deceased male Hindu. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, if there exists no heirs in Class – I, then the properties of a male Hindu will devolve to those heirs in Class – II of the schedule. If there be no heirs as per both Class – I & II available, then the property of the deceased male Hindu would go to his agnates. As per the Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, heirs in Class-I, would exclude every entry in Class-II. The order of succession under Section 9 is the heirs in the early entry excludes those in subsequent entries. Rule of succession among collaterals are based on proximity of their relationship to a deceased male Hindu.
2019 (4) CTC 907 Dr.Panneerselvam & 12 others vs. Padmasini & 2 others Date of Judgment: 13.02.
Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) – Principle of “Boundary prevails over extent” – Applicability of. The Principles boundary will prevail over the extent, is applicable only when the boundaries are referred correctly and the intention of the parties to the documents from the recital lend credence to the boundaries mentioned. In this case, on facts the Title Deeds carry linear measurements, extent and boundaries. The parties do not dispute the linear measurement. In such circumstances, when linear measurements alone is consistent, the general rule that the boundary will prevail over extent is not applicable.
2019 (5) CTC 212
Thatha Sampath Kumar & another vs. Sri Vupputur Alwar Chetty’s Charities, rep by its Hereditary Trustee, Vupputur Ramesh & 4 others
Date of Judgment: 19.03.
Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure - Application under Section 92 – Maintainability of - Conditions for. Section 92 of CPC is a complete Code by itself in respect of the suits based upon an alleged breach of any express or constructive Trust created for Public purposes of a Charitable or Religious nature. In order to attract the Application of the Section, the following four conditions are necessary, viz.,
- There must be a Trust, express or constructive, for Public purposes of a Charitable or Religious nature;
- The Plaint must allege a breach of trust or necessity for direction as to administration of that Trust;
- The Suit must be in the interests of the Public, i.e., it must be brought in a representative capacity for the benefit of the Public and not to enforce individual rights; and
- The relief claimed should be one of the reliefs set out in the Section.
10
2019 (3) TLNJ 63
Manickam.S. vs. Chinnapandiyan
Date of Judgment: 25.03.
Trial of Civi Suit - Suit for Money based on Pronote in the stage of arguments – seeking to reopen the case to summon the witness - Trial completed and posted for arguments – defendant filed application to reopen the case to summon the witness regarding dispute in signature – dismissed. The Petitioner/defendant could very well file the documents containing his admitted signatures, which are in his possession, at the beginning of the trial. But without doing so and also after admitting the signature in the Cross-examination, he has filed the present petition at the fag end of the trial, which in my considering opinion, is only to drag on the proceedings. The Court below, after considering the above aspects, has rightly dismissed the same, which requires no interference from this Court. Therefore, Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
2019 (5) MLJ 207
Paul Marie Josephine vs. Louise Victorine Esperance Lafontaine
Date of Judgment: 11.04.
Order 7 Rule 11of Civil Procedure Code – Striking of Plaint – Cause of Action – The defendant seeking to strike off the suit proceedings on the ground that the Plaint averments did not constitute cause of action - Maintainability. The manner in which the plaint averments indicate the possibility of fraud, such pleadings requires to be tested only through framing of issues and through a proper trial. There exists a cause of action for maintaining the suit to set aside the sale deed on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. Only in the absence of such a cause of action, can the suit proceedings be termed as an abuse of the process of law. When the plaint averments reveal that the knowledge of the sale deed itself was brought to his notice on 23.04.2016 during the course of interrogation in the police station in connection with a criminal complaint, the plaint instituted in the month of August 2016 could be within the limitation. The issue as to whether the suit is barred by limitation since the plaintiff had knowledge of the existence of the sale deed much earlier is a mixed question of law and facts, which can only be tested through a proper trial. Hence, the suit cannot be deemed to be barred by limitiation, on the basis of the plaint averments.
2019 (3) LW 505
T.K.K.N.N.Vysya Charaties, Chennai vs. Global Plastics
Date of Judgment:26.04.
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Possession is admitted – notice was issued under Section 106 - when validity of notice is not disputed it cannot be said that notice was not proper – issue under Section. 106 not a triable issue at all in view of the admission made in the trial. As per this Section, fifteen days time is specified for issuing a legal notice on tenancy on monthly rental basis. Here, 60 days notice was given and after the lapse of 60 days, the suit
11
was filed. As per the amended provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the landlord need not wait for anything and he can proceed with eviction, in the manner known to law. It is an admitted fact that the landlord has specifically conceded that he has not taken any steps without due process of law. In that event, there is no requirement to decide any issue under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, much less, it is not triable issue at all, in view of the admission made in the trial.
2019 (3) TLNJ 5
T.Ravichandran vs. K.Kasthuri & 6 others
Date of Judgment:03.06.
Section 40 of Court Fees Act, 1870 – Where without seeking the set aside of Sale and by not paying Court Fees under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, Plaintiff cannot be permitted for seeking to set aside the sale deed by way of declaration of Title. On a reading of the entire Plaint, it is clear that the Plaintiff, though alleges certain irregularities in the preparation of the document, has signed the same with intention to execute a deed. The invalidity is stated only because the first defendant did not pay the consideration thereafter, that will not exfacie invalidate the document which has been executed voluntarily. Even if the allegations are true, before Court, these documents are purported to have been executed by the Plaintiff. The same cannot be declared as invalid without setting aside the same. By declaration, Plaintiff is really asking for setting aside the deed. Naturally, she has to pay the Court fee under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act(Old Section 7 (IV-A) of the Madras Court Fees Act), which deals with setting aside a document.
