(341) RAKESH AND ANOTHER Vs. THE PUBLIC, AT GENERAL AND OTHER[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Succession Act, 1925 — Sections 372, 373, 387 — Succession Certificate — Nature and Scope of Proceedings — Determination of Title — Proceedings under Section 372, read with Section 373, for the grant of a succession certificate are summary in nature, primarily aimed at facilitating the collection of debts due to the deceased and protecting debtors who make payments to the certificate holder — Such proceedings do not conclusively determine the title or adjudicate the substantive rights of the app India Law Library Docid # 2424169
(342) MAGAN LAL BHATI Vs. RAMESHWAR LAL BHATI[RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 7 Rule 11 — Rejection of Plaint — Jurisdiction — Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 — Section 207 — Nature of Land — For determining jurisdiction and deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court must consider the substance of the plaint averments read as a whole — Where the plaint asserts, and the defendant admits in pleadings, that land recorded as ‘agricultural’ in revenue records has factually changed its nature to residential/non-agricultural use India Law Library Docid # 2424222
(343) SUPRIYA SUNIL ZAMBARE Vs. SUNIL UTTAM ZAMBARE[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXXIX Rule 11 (Bombay Amendment) — Striking Out Defence / Dismissal of Suit — Non-Compliance with Interim Order — Order XXXIX Rule 11 (Bombay Amendment) of the CPC empowers the Court to take stringent action against a party who commits default or contravenes an interim order passed during the pendency of a suit or proceeding — If the default is by the plaintiff/applicant, the suit/proceeding may be dismissed; if the default is by the defendant/opponent, their d India Law Library Docid # 2424280
(344) VICKY MANOJ SHAH Vs. KANAL VICKY SHAH AND ANOTHER[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(s), 12 — Definitions — Aggrieved Person and Shared Household — Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act), an “aggrieved person” as defined in Section 2(a) can only be a woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges domestic violence — Consequently, a male respondent (husband) cannot claim the status of an “aggrieved person” under the Act — The defini India Law Library Docid # 2424297
(345) SRI. MANJUNATH Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FOOD) AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992 — Clause 5, Clause 6 — Fair Price Depot Authorisation — Eligibility as Pre-requisite for Priority — Clause 6(1) of the 1992 Order, dealing with the order of priority for granting Fair Price Depot authorisation, expressly begins with the phrase “Subject to the provisions of Clause 5” — This makes compliance with the eligibility conditions laid down in Clause 5 a mandatory pre-requisite before the question of priority India Law Library Docid # 2424348
(346) MUNAWWAR SULTANA MIRZA NAEEM BAIG AND OTHERS Vs. MUMBAI BUILDING REPAIR & RECONSTRUCTION BOARD (MHADA UNIT) AND OTHERS[BOMBAY HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act) — Section 79-A — Redevelopment of Dilapidated Cessed Building — Right of Tenants/Occupants — Procedure and Timelines — Section 79-A of the MHADA Act outlines a sequential procedure for the redevelopment of dilapidated cessed buildings classified as dangerous — Primarily, the owner/landlord is granted an initial period (three months from the notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888) to undertake redevelop India Law Library Docid # 2424367
(347) ADIUVO DIAGNOSTICS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[MADRAS HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Patents Act, 1970 — Section 25(1) — Judicial Review of Pre-Grant Opposition Rejection — Alternative Remedy — While the Patents Act, 1970 does not provide a statutory appeal against the rejection of a pre-grant opposition, the High Court retains discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere if the decision-making process is flawed — However, the Court will ordinarily decline to exercise this term “Held” and referencing the relevant paragraph India Law Library Docid # 2424459
(348) E.T. MOHANAN Vs. PANKAJAKSHY AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Hindu Law — Joint Family Property — Nucleus — Burden of Proof — While there is a presumption that a Hindu family is joint, there is no presumption that it possesses joint property — The burden lies on the person alleging that property is joint family property to prove the existence of an adequate nucleus of ancestral property from which subsequent acquisitions could have been made — Once adequate nucleus is proved, the burden shifts to the member claiming property as self-acquired to prove it wa India Law Library Docid # 2424582
(349) FAKRUDEEN K.V. @ FAKRUDEEN PANTHAVOOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA[KERALA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) — Sections 3(1)(r), 18 & 18A — Anticipatory Bail — Prima Facie Case — Insult or Intimidation in Public View — For determining the applicability of the bar on anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act, the court must ascertain if a prima facie case for an offence under the Act is made out — An offence under Section 3(1)(r) (intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a mem India Law Library Docid # 2424583
(350) P.A. THOMAS (DIED) AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. SOUTHERN HOUSING CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — Specific Performance — Readiness and Willingness — Proof — Conduct of Parties — In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must plead and prove readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract continuously — While financial capacity is relevant, readiness and willingness encompass more than just financial means and include the plaintiff’s conduct and intention throughout — Where the plaintiff has paid a substantial portion of the India Law Library Docid # 2424584
(351) PICHI AND OTHERS Vs. ARULAN NADAR ANANTHAPAPPU AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 47 — Execution Proceedings — Scope — Res Judicata — The scope of inquiry under Section 47 CPC is confined to questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree — An executing court cannot go behind the decree unless the decree is shown to be a nullity or passed without inherent jurisdiction — Objections regarding the correctness or legality of the decree, or matters that were raised or could have been raised and were decided during India Law Library Docid # 2424585
(352) E.T. MOHANAN Vs. PANKAJAKSHY AND OTHERS[KERALA HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Hindu Law — Joint Family Property — Mitakshara School — Property obtained in Partition — Ancestral Character — Birth Right — Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu Law, property obtained by a coparcener upon partition of joint family property retains its character as ancestral property vis-a-vis his own male issue (sons, grandsons, great-grandsons) — Such male issue acquires an interest in it by birth. The fact that the partition deed recites some properties as self-acquired by the partitioning me India Law Library Docid # 2424586
(353) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. SURAJRAM AND OTHERS[CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 149, 302, 307 — Unlawful Assembly — Murder and Attempt to Murder — Evidence of Injured Eyewitness — Corroboration — The testimony of an injured eyewitness (PW-1) regarding the commission of murder and attempt to murder by members of an unlawful assembly carries significant evidentiary value — Minor contradictions or omissions, or failure to name all accused in the FIR initially, do not vitiate the entire testimony if the witness consistently implicates the accused, in India Law Library Docid # 2424700
(354) THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KARU NUKALAMMA AND OTHERS[ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] 25-03-2025 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Legal Representative — Entitlement of Married Daughter to Claim Compensation — A married daughter, being a legal heir under personal law, falls within the inclusive definition of ‘legal representative’ under Section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) and is therefore entitled to maintain a claim petition under Section 166 seeking compensation for the death of her father in a motor accident — Her eligibi India Law Library Docid # 2424823
(355) 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
(356) 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
(357) 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
(358) 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
(359) 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
(360) 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