Latest
Judgments to be discussed on subject- proof of will, Issuance of Succession
certificate, Probate etc., Issuance
of legal heirship certificate.
@1
1)“Shahid
Khan -Vs-State of Rajasthan,
[Criminal
Appeal No.1460 of 2008]
[Criminal
Appeal No.1461 of 2008]
[Criminal
Appeal No.1462 of 2008] decided by Hon' SC on 2nd
March 2016”
wherein
it is held that, the delay in recording the statements casts a
serious doubt about their being eye-witnesses to the occurrence. It
may suggest that the investigating officer was deliberately marking
time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case
and the eye-witnesses to be introduced.
The
circumstances in this case lend such significance to this delay. PW
25 Mirza Majid Beg and PW 24 Mohamed Shakir, in view of their
unexplained silence and delayed statement to the police, does not
appear to us to be wholly reliable witnesses. There is no
corroboration of their evidence from any other independent source
either. We find it rather unsafe to rely upon their evidence only to
uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The High Court
has failed to advert to the contentions raised by the appellants and
re-appreciate the evidence thereby resulting in miscarriage of
justice. In our opinion, the case against the appellants has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
@2
2) “Uttam
Vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors.
[Civil
Appeal No. 2360 of 2016 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.6036 of 2014],
decided by Hon' -SC-on 2nd
March 2016”
It is appeal of plaintiff who filed a suit for partition, being Suit
No.5A of 1999 before the Second Civil Judge, Class II Devas, Madhya
Pradesh, dated 28.12.1998, in which the first four defendants
happened to be his father (defendant No.3), and his father's three
brothers i.e. defendant Nos. 1,2 and 4. He claimed a 1/8th share in
the suit property on the footing that the suit property was ancestral
property, and that, being a coparcener, he had a right by birth in
the said property in accordance with the Mitakshara Law.
The
first Appellate Court, confirmed the finding that the property was
ancestral and that no earlier partition between the brothers had in
fact taken place. However, it held that the plaintiff's grandfather,
one Jagannath Singh having died in 1973, his widow Mainabai being
alive at the time of his death, the said Jagannath Singh's share
would have to be distributed in accordance with Section 8 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as if the said Jagannath Singh had died
intestate, and that being the case, once Section 8 steps in, the
joint family property has to be divided in accordance with rules of
intestacy and not survivorship.
It is held that, in view of the provisions contained in Sections 4,6,
8 and Schedule of the Act it is clear that after coming into force of
the Act grand-son has no birth right in the properties of
grand-father and he cannot claim partition during lifetime of his
father.
On
a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 8 and 19 of the Act, after joint
family property has been distributed in accordance with section 8 on
principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint
family property in the hands of the various persons who have
succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and
not as joint tenants.
Therefore
held that, said ancestral property, not being joint family property,
the suit for partition of such property would not be maintainable.
The appeal is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.
@3
3) “Chandrashekhar
s/o Pandurang Tumsare-Vs-Dr. Balkrishna s/o Shivkaran Changani
(Sharma)and others,WRIT PETITION NO. 3147 OF 2014,Bom.H.C. Uploaded
on - 23/02/2016”
-the
application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to amend the
written statement after the commencement of trial, could not have
been entertained and allowed by the trial Court as the petitioner has
not even averred as to what prevented him for bringing on the record
the facts sought to be incorporated by the proposed amendment.
@4
4) “Shri.
Kailas Sitaram Adagale-Vs-State of Maharashtra, Through Yerawada
Police Station, Pune, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.324 OF
2007,Bom.H.C.Uploaded on – 22/02/2016”
“
The imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the
social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The
social impact of the crime e.g. where it relates to offence against
women, dacoity, kidnapping etc. involving moral turpitude to moral
delinquency, which have great impact on social order and public
interest cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary
treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing less sentence or taking
too sympathetic view on account of lapse of time in respect of such
offence, may be otherwise counter productive in the long time and
against social interest which needs to be cared for and guaranteed by
string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.”
One
of the object of imposing punishment on the accused is to
create
a deterrent effect so that other like minded persons do not dare to
indulge in such acts or offences. The punishment imposed by the Trial
Court does not achieve that deterrent object or effect also.
Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that the Appeal preferred by
the State for enhancement of punishment of the Appellant has to be
allowed, thereby increasing the imprisonment upto life and enhancing
the amount of compensation also. Hence, the order.
@5
5)
“Raj Narayan-Vs-Sri. Anoop, Contempt28/11, decided on
01.03.2016,AHC”.
Contempt
of court Act
contain no provision for review of a judgment- application for
recall of order passed in contempt proceeding not maintainable-
Reveiw/recall/appeal are statutory remedies-Thus unless provided in
the Act, remedy is not available.
@6
6)
“Milind
v. Pramod, Arb. A 18/15, 29.02.2016 BHC Nag.”
Sec.
8(1) of Arbitration and conc. Act- Defendant can not apply to Court
to refer parties to arbitration after filing application under
R. 3 (5)of O. 37 CPC for grant of leave to defend –
Application u/s 8 to be filed before disclosing defence in suit under
O. 37 CPC.
Comments
Post a Comment