LawforAll

▼
Tuesday, January 29, 2013

the death sentence= every murder is brutal, and the difference between the one from the other may be on account of mitigating or aggravating features surrounding the murder.; It is well settled law that awarding of life sentence is a rule and death is an exception. ; Life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20 years or even 30 years, rather it always means the whole natural life.; there is misconception that a prisoner serving life sentence has an indefeasible right to release on completion of either 14 years or 20 years imprisonment. A convict undergoing life imprisonment is expected to remain in custody till the end of his life, subject to any remission granted by the appropriate Government under Section 432 of the Code which in turn is subject to the procedural checks mentioned in the said provision and further substantive check in Section 433-A of the Code.;The appellant-accused, therefore, instead of being awarded death penalty, is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, meaning thereby, the end of his life but subject to any remission granted by the appropriate Government satisfying the conditions prescribed in Section 432 of the Code and further substantiate check under Section 433-A of the Code by passing appropriate speaking orders. The appeals are disposed of on the above terms.

›
                                     REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                        CRIMINAL...

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

›
AS 144 / 2012 ASSR 2991 / 2012   PETITIONER RESPONDENT KALVA VENKATESWARLU   VS DEVAKI VENKATA RAMANA PET.ADV. :  VENKATESWARLU CHAK...

As per Order 21 Rule 102 of C.P.C. nothing in Rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for the possession of immovable property by a person to whom the judgment-debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit. Having considered the scope of Rule 102 of Order 21 of CPC it was held in VEERABHATHINI JANARDHAN v. TERALA RAJAIAH (since died) Per L.R.[4] by one of us (G.Rohini, J) that the petitioner therein who was the transferee pendente lite cannot maintain an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC. The same principle is attracted to the case on hand since the appellants are claiming title and possession on the basis of an alleged transfer that took place during the pendency of O.S.No.8 of 1996. Hence on that ground also they cannot maintain the applications under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold on Point No.1 that the claim petitions filed by the appellants herein under 21 Rule 97 of CPC are not maintainable and the Court below has rightly dismissed the same. Point No.2:

›
*  THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR +  C.C.C.A. NOs.61 & 87  OF 2012 %D...