LawforAll

▼
Tuesday, October 28, 2025

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96 — Appeal from original decree — Scope — Reappreciation of evidence — Appellate Court, while hearing a first appeal under S. 96 CPC, has power to reappreciate entire oral and documentary evidence and arrive at its own findings. Where trial court’s judgment is based on improper appreciation of evidence and erroneous application of law, interference by the appellate court is justified. (B) Evidence Act, 1872 — Ss. 101–103 — Burden of proof — Declaration of title and possession — Onus lies on plaintiff — In a suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s case. Mere possession in the past or payment of land revenue does not confer ownership. Followed: Union of India v. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC 269; Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira, AIR 1959 SC 31; Sajana Granites v. Manduva Srinivasa Rao, 2001 (6) ALD 270. (C) Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 — Ss. 3(g), 11 — Tank bed land — No Ryotwari patta can be granted — Land classified as “Cheruvu Padaka” (tank bed) or “Ava tank poramboke” is not ryoti land within the meaning of the Act. No person can claim Ryotwari patta over such land. Plaintiffs’ reliance on old pattas and tax receipts could not override the statutory prohibition. Held, that tank bed land vests in the Government and cannot be claimed as private property. (D) Limitation Act, 1963 — Art. 65 — Adverse possession and limitation for possession — Computation — Suit for declaration of title and possession must be filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession. Plaintiffs alleged dispossession “after 29-6-1976” but produced no specific evidence of continued possession thereafter. Oral evidence revealed dispossession around 1974–76; suit filed on 17-6-1988 held barred by limitation. Held, vague pleadings about dispossession cannot extend limitation (E) Civil Law — Declaratory relief — Multiple plaintiffs claiming distinct parcels of land — When numerous plaintiffs claim independent parcels under separate alleged grants, each must independently prove title and possession. A composite suit for collective declaration of ownership is not maintainable unless a common right or cause of action is established. Plaintiffs’ joint claim failed for want of individual proof. (F) Land Law — Estates Abolition — Classification of land — Zeroyiti vs. Poramboke — Conversion of land classification by Settlement authorities cannot be interfered with by Civil Court unless shown to be without jurisdiction or in violation of mandatory procedure. No such proof shown in this case; plaintiffs’ claim that zeroyiti lands were wrongly reclassified as poramboke rejected. (G) Result — Appeals allowed — Judgment and decree of Trial Court dated 05.10.2001 in O.S. No. 288/1988 set aside — Suit dismissed — Each party to bear its own costs.

›
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 96 — Appeal from original decree — Scope — Reappreciation of evidence — Appellate Court, while hearing a...

(1) NDPS Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 8(c) — Possession of intermediate quantity of ganja — Bail — Considerations. Where the accused, a woman, was found in possession of 4.038 kilograms of ganja (intermediate quantity) and had no prior criminal record, and the investigation was substantially completed, continued detention was held to be unnecessary. Bail can be granted subject to stringent conditions, as the embargo under Section 37 NDPS Act applies only to commercial quantity. (Paras 3–5) (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 437 and 439 — Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 480 and 483 — Grant of bail — Discretion of Court. Discretion under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. (and corresponding provisions of BNSS, 2023) should be exercised in favour of the accused when the investigation is almost complete, the accused has a fixed place of residence, and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. (Paras 3–4) (3) Criminal Procedure — Bail to Women Accused — Judicial Approach. Special consideration to be given to women accused under the proviso to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting bail to female offenders, particularly when they are first-time offenders and the alleged quantity is not commercial. (Para 3) (4) Bail — Conditions — Stringent safeguards imposed. Bail granted subject to conditions: execution of personal bond and sureties, weekly appearance before SHO, restriction on leaving the State, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and cooperation with investigation. (Para 5) Held: A woman accused of possessing an intermediate quantity of narcotic substance, with no criminal antecedents and a fixed abode, is entitled to bail when investigation is substantially completed, subject to appropriate conditions ensuring her presence and cooperation.

›
(1) NDPS Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 8(c) — Possession of intermediate quantity of ganja — Bail — Considerations. Whe...

Contempt of Court – Willful Disobedience – Non-Compliance of Court Order – Filling of Aided Teacher Posts – G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994 – RTE Act, 2009 – Alleged Violation. Writ Mandamus – Implementation of Earlier Order: Petitioners sought to punish respondents for alleged willful disobedience of the order dated 20.02.2023 in W.P.No.4058 of 2023, wherein the Court had directed the authorities to permit filling of aided vacancies in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1 (Education), dated 01.01.1994, and as per the schedule under Sections 19 & 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Respondents’ Compliance: Counter affidavits revealed that the 4th respondent (Joint Director, Model Schools) granted permission on 13.03.2024 to fill the two vacant aided SGT posts, and the petitioner was instructed to proceed after issuing newspaper notifications. The petitioner failed to submit documentary proof of the advertisements and the list of applicants. Despite being advised to give wider publicity, the petitioner did not cooperate. Later, pursuant to Government Memo dated 25.09.2024, applications were invited online (07.12.2024–15.12.2024) and a Deputy Educational Officer was nominated to oversee recruitment. Court’s Observation: The record demonstrated that the respondents had taken active steps to implement the Court’s earlier order. The delay or non-completion of the recruitment process was due to non-cooperation of the petitioner institution, not because of any willful disobedience by the officials. No Willful Violation: The Court held that the respondents had acted bona fide and complied substantially with the order. There was no deliberate or intentional violation of the Court’s directions. Result: Contempt case dismissed — No willful disobedience established. All connected miscellaneous petitions closed. Held: “The respondents did not commit any willful and deliberate violation of the order passed by this Court. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed.”

›
Contempt of Court – Willful Disobedience – Non-Compliance of Court Order – Filling of Aided Teacher Posts – G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01...

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 163-A, 166, 168 & 169 – A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Rule 476 – Claims Tribunal – Evidence and Basis of Award – Standard of Proof Rule 476(7) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Documentary Basis for Award – Nature of Proof Required – Certified copies of FIR, post-mortem certificate, inquest, and MVI report are sufficient basis for the Claims Tribunal to determine the occurrence of accident, involvement of the vehicle, and death of the victim. – Rule 476(7) provides a statutory foundation for considering such records as prima facie evidence, dispensing with the strict rules of the Evidence Act. – [Ref. Bimla Devi v. HRTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530; Anitha Sarma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 171.] Proceedings before MACT – Summary in Nature – Standard of Proof – Proof beyond reasonable doubt not required; the Tribunal must proceed on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. – Motor accident claims are social welfare proceedings and cannot be rejected on mere technicalities or procedural lapses. – (Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 509.) Section 163-A – No-fault Liability – Examination of Negligence and Involvement of Vehicle Section 163-A – Necessity to Prove Negligence – Scope of Tribunal’s Power – In a claim under Section 163-A, claimant need not plead or prove negligence, but the Tribunal is not precluded from examining whether the accident was caused due to the involvement of the vehicle or whether any defence such as false implication or non-involvement is made out. – The burden on the claimant is limited to establishing involvement of the vehicle, not the fault of its driver. Multi-vehicle Accidents under Section 163-A – Apportionment of Liability – When two vehicles are involved, and evidence indicates participation of both in the occurrence, apportionment of liability is permissible even in a Section 163-A claim. – The Tribunal is empowered to fix proportionate responsibility between owners and insurers of both vehicles based on the circumstances of the case. – [Applied A.P.S.R.T.C. v. K. Hemlatha, (2008) 6 SCC 767; T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan, (2008) 3 SCC 748.] Negligence – Composite and Contributory Negligence – Determination Composite Negligence – Joint and Several Liability – When two or more vehicles jointly cause an accident resulting in injury or death to a third party, the tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable, and the claimant can recover entire compensation from any of them. Contributory Negligence – Evaluation – Negligence must be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable driver under the circumstances. – Mere failure to avoid an accident does not constitute contributory negligence. – (Pramodkumar Rasikbhai Jhaveri v. Karmasey Kunvargi Tak, (2002) 6 SCC 455; Swadling v. Cooper, 1931 AC 1.) Liability of Insurers – Pay and Recovery – Absence of Driving Licence Driving Licence – Pay and Recovery – Absence of a valid driving licence with the rider/driver at the time of the accident constitutes a violation of policy conditions, entitling the insurer, upon payment to the claimants, to recover the amount from the offending owner or driver. – The insurer cannot be completely exonerated where statutory liability exists, but may be granted liberty of recovery. – [Ref. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297.] Pay and Recovery – When Not Automatic – Pay and recovery is not a mechanical consequence of every licence violation; the Tribunal must find a causal link between breach and accident. – In the absence of such link, the insurer cannot be absolved of liability merely because the driver held no valid licence. Compensation – Quantum – Multiplier – Principles of Computation Assessment of Income and Multiplier – When there is no documentary evidence of income, notional income under Second Schedule (Rs.15,000 per annum) may be adopted, subject to judicial updating for inflation. – Multiplier method as per Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, applied; for age 40, multiplier of 15 held appropriate. Heads of Compensation – Conventional Sums – Future Prospects – Compensation must include fixed heads: Loss of dependency Loss of consortium Loss of estate Funeral expenses – Enhancement of compensation permissible in light of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, though quantum in this case upheld for want of proof of higher income. Pillion Rider – Status as Third Party – Entitlement to Compensation Pillion Rider – Third Party Status – A pillion rider is treated as a third party vis-à-vis the insurer of the motorcycle, and his legal heirs are entitled to claim compensation against the insurer and owner. – Rejection of claim on the ground that pillion rider is not a third party is contrary to settled law. – [Ref. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, (2003) 2 SCC 223; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh, (2006) 4 SCC 404.] Result and Holdings Held – (i) In a claim under Section 163-A, while negligence need not be proved, the Tribunal may examine the participation of vehicles and fix apportionment where both are involved. – (ii) FIR, inquest, post-mortem and MVI reports are sufficient to establish involvement of the vehicle. – (iii) Both the lorry and motorcycle contributed to the accident; apportionment of liability at 50% each between the insurers (Oriental and Bajaj Allianz) is upheld. – (iv) Pay-and-recovery direction in respect of Bajaj Allianz against the unlicensed rider sustained. – (v) Quantum of compensation at Rs.1,59,500/- upheld as per notional income scale and multiplier method. – (vi) Appeals dismissed; award of the Tribunal confirmed.

›
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 163-A, 166, 168 & 169 – A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Rule 476 – Claims Tribunal – Evidence and ...