LawforAll

▼
Thursday, March 29, 2018

Train Examiner with the Indian Railways, = Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India to try and make life after retirement easier for a government servant by having appropriate legislation enacted by Parliament or applicable Pension Rules rather than a khichdi of Instructions, Office Memoranda, Clarifications, Corrigenda and so on and so forth.

›
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3173 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) No....

Partition list admissible for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds = whether the document dated 09.09.1994 which was inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of 10 various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. Further, an unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. = whether these can be used for any collateral purpose. The larger Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnappareddigari Peda Mutyala Reddy v. Chinnappareddigari Venkata Reddy(AIR 1969 AP 242) has held that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases i.e. severancy of status, division of joint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. An unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. Hence, if the appellant­defendant want to mark these documents for collateral purpose it is open for them to pay the stamp duty together with penalty and get the document impounded and the trial court is at liberty to mark Exts. B­21 and B­22 for collateral purpose subject to proof and relevance. Following the law laid down by this Court in the above case, we are of the opinion that document dated 09.09.1994 may be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose provided the appellant get the document impounded and to pay the stamp duty together with penalty as has been directed in the above case.

›
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO................OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C)N...

suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit scheduled property. It is her case that the property originally belonged to her grandfather Banshi Dhar. After Banshi Dhar’s death, her father Dharam Singh and her paternal uncle Mathura Prasad have succeeded to the said property and after the death of her father Dharam Singh, she is entitled for half share in the said property. Dharam Singh had executed a sale deed in respect of his fifty per cent share in the said property in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiff filed a reply to the written statement contending that the sale deed said to have been executed by Dharam Singh has been obtained by fraud and mis-representation and hence, the said sale deed is not binding upon her.= It cannot be held that the sale deed dated 11.07.1991 executed by Dharam Singh was obtained by fraud or by mis-representation. It is clear that when the sale deed was executed by Dharam Singh, he was having sound state of mind. The Sub-Registrar, who had registered the documents was examined as DW-3. In his evidence he stated that the sale deed was executed by Dharam Singh after he had explained to the parties about contents of the said deed. Ex. D-1 was attested by PW-2 and PW-3. They have nowhere stated in their statements that Dharam Singh was not in good state of mind at the time of the execution of the document. Though it is contended on behalf of the appellant that Dharam Singh was not keeping well, no medical evidence has been produced in support of the said contention. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the High Court.

›
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON CIVIL APPEAL NO.2367 OF 2010 KRISHNA DEVI … APPELLANT VERS...

Will Deed - suit - seeking ejectment of his brother = whether the Courts below were right in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent—plaintiff on the basis of the Will. It is not in dispute that the Will was executed by the testator in the year 1945 and it was drawn in the own handwriting of the executant himself. His handwriting was also duly proved by PW5—Nandlal Nagar, grandson-in-law of late Goverdhanlal, who used to correspond with him and thereby well acquainted with the handwriting of the testator. The argument that the Will lacks credibility because the idea of bringing it on record was an afterthought of the respondent—plaintiff, that too after filing the written statement, cannot be sustained for the reason that PW2—Tushar Akolekar, Clerk of Indore Paraspar Sahkari Bank, clearly deposed, supported by documentary evidence, that the respondent secured a loan from the Bank by pledging the Will in the year 1964 and since then the Will was kept in the bank. It is also on record that the said witness (PW2) was not cross-examined at the trial - Once the will is believed to be a genuine piece of document, there is no need for us to delve into the matter further. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below by reasoned judgments

›
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5887 OF 2009 MOHAN LAL … APPELLANT VERSUS N...
Monday, March 26, 2018

Election petition - striking of pleadings and rejection = whether material facts and cause of action have been pleaded in the subject election petition necessitating a trial; and, third, whether the election petition as filed deserved to be rejected in limine without conducting a trialthe High Court has overlooked the cause of action stated in the election petition, which arose from the 14 fact that two different sets of nomination forms and affidavits were filed by respondent No.1 containing several material deficiencies and discrepancies and which was fatal. In other words, the nomination form of respondent No.1 was wrongly accepted and it materially affected the election results of the appellant.

›
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9466-9468 OF 2016 Madiraju Venkata Ramana Ra...