Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“A plain reading of Section 17 DV Act confers upon every woman in a domestic relationship the right to reside in the shared household, irrespective of whether she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. However, it does not create a proprietary interest in the property and is subject to lawful eviction in accordance with due process.”
Allahabad High Court emphasied that the proceedings under Section 27 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be treated as independent or standalone proceedings to result in a decree.
“When the donor and donee, who are father and son, are residing together in residential house owned by the father, it is not expected that after gifting the property by way of Hiba, the father would leave the residence.”
“Merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased, and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. The only requirement is that the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.”
“The stage at which the first suit is, would not be a material consideration in deciding the applicability of the bar under Order II Rule 2. What needs to be looked into is whether the cause of action in both suits is one and the same in substance, and whether the plaintiff is agitating the second suit for claiming a relief that was very well available to him at the time of filing the first suit.”
It was observed that the Complaint/FIR was replete with just one theme i.e. that the appellants are threatening the respondents that they will deny them share in the property. The Complaint/FIR was intended only to further their interest in the civil dispute.
“A reading of the Act makes it clear that the forum under the Act do not have the jurisdiction to decide the title of the property and the purpose of the Act is maintenance of the senior citizen and to ensure their welfare. The question of title, therefore, cannot be decided by forums under the Senior Citizens Act”
The Court noted that pepper spray is undoubtedly a dangerous weapon and refused to quash crime registered against the petitioners for using pepper spray as private defence on respondents during a quarrel.
Raising concerns over the period of delays in hearing appeals, the Karnataka High Court made detailed suggestions for effective functioning of judiciary, and which can reduce work -load of the High Court.
Supreme Court: In a suit for specific performance the Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., explained the
Tripura High Court: T. Amarnath Goud, J. dismissed a second appeal which was filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code,
Supreme Court: While deciding about a century-old land dispute, the Division Bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ., upheld the impugned
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai*, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein
Supreme Court: In a case where the trial court had convicted the accused and imposed death penalty on the very same day,
Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J., dismissed the second appeal explaining that the second appeal is maintainable before the High Court
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi: Naresh Kumar Laka, Additional District Judge, decided a suit with respect to partition and permanent injunction.
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai, JJ has, in two judgments, has held that where the plaintiff’s
Delhi High Court: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J., passed a decree for recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiffs without a trial,
Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar* and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ has held that for invoking Section 17 of the Limitation Act,
Supreme Court: In a case where abuses were hurled by a person of upper caste at a person belonging to Scheduled Caste