(621) SANGISAPU SEETARAMA RAO AND OTHERS Vs. B V S MURTHY[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Registration Act, 1908 — Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed — A registered sale deed cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the vendor by executing a cancellation deed before the Sub-Registrar Such cancellation is void, non est, and meaningless, especially without mutual consent of all parties or an order from a competent Civil Court annulling the sale deed — The Sub-Registrar lacks the authority to register such unilateral cancellation deeds. India Law Library Docid # 2424872
(622) CH. KESHO DASS (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS Vs. LOCHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Evidence — Oral Sale of Land — Burden of Proof — In a claim based on an alleged oral sale of substantial land for a significant consideration (Rs. 35,000 in 1952), the burden lies heavily upon the plaintiff asserting the sale — The absence of any oral or documentary evidence substantiating the transaction, coupled with the implausibility of such a high-value oral transaction without documentation, points against the veracity of the claim. India Law Library Docid # 2424984
(623) PREM SAGAR Vs. CHAMAN LAL AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Hindu Law — Joint Family Property — Presumption and Nucleus — The mere existence of a joint Hindu family does not raise a presumption that property possessed by a member is joint family property — The party alleging that property is joint must demonstrate the existence of an adequate joint family nucleus from which the property could have been acquired — Upon such proof, the onus shifts to the party claiming self-acquisition. India Law Library Docid # 2424985
(624) SMT. SANTOSH AND ANOTHER Vs. SATBIR @ KALIA AND OTHERS[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Compensation — Loss of Dependency (Pension) — Where a deceased ex-serviceman was receiving pension and the widow is entitled to family pension, the loss of dependency arising from the pension component is assessable based on the difference between the deceased’s pension and the family pension payable to the widow — Appropriate deductions for personal expenses and the relevant multiplier based on the deceased’s age apply to this differential amount. India Law Library Docid # 2424986
(625) SUKHDEEP SINGH Vs. HARBANT KAUR AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 18 Rule 3 — Rebuttal Evidence — A plaintiff’s right to lead evidence in rebuttal is restricted to issues where the burden of proof lies on the defendant — To exercise this right, the plaintiff must explicitly reserve it, either at the time of closing affirmative evidence or, at the latest, before the defendant commences their evidence — Failure to reserve this right forfeits the entitlement to lead rebuttal evidence on issues where the onus rests with the plain India Law Library Docid # 2424987
(626) PAWAN KUMAR Vs. YOMI AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 125 — Interim Maintenance — Assessment of Husband’s Income — In proceedings for interim maintenance, the Family Court possesses the authority to assess the husband’s income by considering factors beyond his declared unemployment — Evidence such as high educational qualifications (B.Tech.), maintenance of multiple bank accounts with regular transactions, significant insurance policy premiums, and substantial EMI payments for large loans justifies a presumpt India Law Library Docid # 2424988
(627) KALU SINGH Vs. STATE[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) — Section 319 — Summoning Additional Accused — Standard of Proof Required — Material Contradictions in Evidence — The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused should not be exercised lightly or mechanically — A higher degree of satisfaction is required than merely prima facie case formation during charge framing — The evidence adduced during trial, forming the basis for summoning, must be scrutinized carefully — Significant contradic India Law Library Docid # 2425051
(628) HARWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 319 — Power to Summon Additional Accused — The power conferred upon the trial court by Section 319 Cr.P.C. to proceed against any person not being an accused, based on evidence adduced during inquiry or trial, is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and only where circumstances strongly warrant it to ensure complete justice. India Law Library Docid # 2425011
(629) VED PARKASH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 28 read with Section 18A — Penalty for Non-Disclosure — Conviction under Section 28 for contravention of Section 18A (failure to disclose the source of drug acquisition) is unsustainable against retailers or distributors who, upon being required by a Drug Inspector, furnish the name, address, and particulars (including purchase bills) of the person (distributor or manufacturer, respectively) from whom they acquired the drug — Such disclosure constitutes co India Law Library Docid # 2425012
(630) LAL MOHAN POREL @ LALMOHAN @ LALU POREL Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL[CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Section 375 (as applicable pre-amendment) & Section 376 — Rape — Consent — Age of Prosecutrix — Promise to Marry — Where the prosecutrix alleges rape based on sexual intercourse under a promise to marry, but the evidence (including ossification test suggesting majority, though report not produced) indicates she was likely above 16 years (the then relevant age under S.375 Sixthly) and thus capable of giving valid consent, and her conduct shows voluntary participation in the rel India Law Library Docid # 2425212
(631) M/S. V MARC INDIA LIMITED Vs. JAAN ILLAHI AND ANOTHER[UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 — Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case — Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed — Where a plaintiff seeks cancellation of a registered sale deed executed by him, merely pleading that he was not mentally stable at the time of execution, without denying his signature or appearance before the Sub-Registrar or detailing specific acts of fraud, does not establish a strong prima facie case warranting the grant of a temporary injunction, especially aga India Law Library Docid # 2425236
(632) N.P. SASEENDRAN Vs. N.P. PONNAMMA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-03-2025 Gift vs. Settlement vs. Will — A document conveying property with consideration (love and affection), imposing conditions, and reserving a life interest is a Gift by Settlement India Law Library Docid # 2423826
(633) FIROZ KHAN AKBARKHAN Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-03-2025 Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 151 — Minor Discrepancies in Witness Statements — Minor and immaterial inconsistencies in witness statements do not harm the prosecution's case, especially when explained by the circumstances of the case India Law Library Docid # 2423827
(634) JOTHIRAGAWAN Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND ANOTHER[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 90 and 376 — Consent in Rape Cases — Consent obtained through false promise of marriage is not valid consent, but in this case, no such promise was made before the alleged crime, and the relationship was consensual India Law Library Docid # 2423828
(635) STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. DR. RITU GARG AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 161 and 439 — Directions for CBI Investigation in Bail Applications — High Courts cannot issue directions for CBI investigation in bail applications, as it exceeds their jurisdiction under Section 439 of the CrPC India Law Library Docid # 2423829
(636) YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-03-2025 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 113 — Andhra Pradesh (Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books) Act, 1971 — Possession is prima facie proof of ownership, and the burden of proving otherwise lies on the party denying it, including the government — This appeal arises from a High Court judgment that reversed a Trial Court decree in favor of the appellants, who sought a declaration of title and recovery of possession of land they were dispossessed from by the State of Andhra Prade India Law Library Docid # 2423830
(637) AMIT KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] 24-03-2025 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 154 — Registration of FIR — Mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if information discloses commission of a cognizable offense; no preliminary inquiry permissible in such cases India Law Library Docid # 2423831
(638) DR. RICHA SHARMA Vs. DR. M.K. SEXENA[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 6 Rule 17 — Amendment of a written statement after the commencement of trial is permissible only if the party seeking amendment demonstrates due diligence and provides sufficient reasons for the omission in the original pleading — High Court dismissed a petition challenging the trial court's order that rejected the petitioner-defendant's application for amendment of the written statement filed after the commencement of evidence, finding that the petitioner fail India Law Library Docid # 2423792
(639) ROHIT MAHAJAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANOTHER[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 528 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498-A, 504, and 506 read with 34 — While general and vague allegations in FIRs arising from matrimonial disputes may warrant quashing to prevent abuse of process, FIRs containing specific details of alleged harassment, corroborated by evidence, are maintainable and should proceed to trial — High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash an FIR and consequential proceedings related to allegations o India Law Library Docid # 2423793
(640) SEWA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF H.P.[HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT] 24-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 279, 201, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 — In a revision against conviction, High Court has a limited scope to correct patent defects or errors of law, and in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must not reverse the trial court's judgment unless the trial court's view is perverse, particularly concerning the identification of previously unknown accused, which requires corroboration beyond a dock identification — High Court allowed a criminal revis India Law Library Docid # 2423794