Vol-II Part 11

November, 2007

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

(Correction)

Compiled by Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy Chennai 28

SUPREME COURT CITATIONS

 2007 (4) TLNJ 116 (Civil) Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. Santosh Kumari Specific Relief Act 1963 ...... (2007) 2 MLJ 1591 (SC) Imran Ali Vs. Habibullah and another Bail ..... (2007) 2 MLJ 1575 (SC) Deepak Singchi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 ..... (2007) 2 MLJ 1629 (SC) Shivanand Mallappa Koti Vs. State of Karnataka (A) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 498-A ..... (B) ***** 2007 4 L.W. 36 Janardhanam Prasad Vs. Ramdas Transfer of Property Act (1882) ..... 2007 4 L.W. 29 Hardev Singh Vs. Gurmail Singh (Dead) by LRs Transfer of Property Act (1882), Section 43 .....

HIGH COURT CITATIONS

2007 (4) TLNJ 77 (Civil) K.S. Ramanathan (died) and Another Vs. R. Jayaraman and 6 Others. Evidence Act 1872 Section 68 ..... 2007 (4) TLNJ 77 (Civil) K.S. Ramanathan (died) and Another Vs. R. Jayaraman and 6 Others.

Hindu Law Presumption as to Joint family .....

 2007 (4) TLNJ 61 (Civil) A.R.M. Nizmathuallah Vs. Vaduganathan Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 Section 138 & Indian Contract Act 1872 Section 25 Acknowledgement of Liability..... 2007 (4) TLNJ 352 (Civil) The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (VPM DVN-I) Ltd., Villupuram Vs. Poomalai and 3 others. Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Section 169 Quantum of Compensation ..... 2007 (4) TLNJ 149 (Civil) Ponnappan Vs. Gopal Pillai Civil Procedure Code 1908 as amended Order 21, Rule 97 ..... Line 3 unauthorised instead of an authorised Line 4 it instead of that it

2007 (4) TLNJ 18 (Civil) Muniappa Gounder (died) and 6 others Vs. Ganeshan and another Civil Procedure Code 1908 as amended Seeking expert opinion on comparison of Signatures: In a suit filed for declaration and injunction, the plaintiff sought a direction to summon an expert to compare and give the opinions on the disputed signatures and thumb impression in certain documents produced during trail and after examination of DW2. The Trial Court rejected the application and on appeal to the High Court, it was held that since the thumb impression found on the disputed document is in dispute, the same has to be necessarily compred by an Expert, as one cannot say that due to lapse of time the thumb impression differs. It was further held that the small hyper technical procedural lapses cannot come in the way of any Court in its exercise to do justice to the parties. Revision Allowed.

2007 (4) TLNJ 44 (Civil)

Rengaswami Bali Vs. Maruthayee Ammal and another Transfer of Property Act 1882 Section 6 (a) A suit has been filed for declaration that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property by court auction sale and the prior sale in favour of defendant by the auction purchaser when he was not the owner of the property is not valid. The trial court decreed the suit, and the appeal was also dismissed. On appeal to the High Court, it was held that the chance of an heir apparent succeeding to an estate or mere possibility of a like nature cannot be transferred and cannot give any right to title to transferee. Such transfers are only spes successions or hope of Succession. Appeal dismissed.

2007 (4) TLNJ 49 (Civil) Nagendra Pillai @ Naga Chandra Pillai Vs. Easwara Pillai Limitation Act 1963 Article 60 Suit for declaration that the sale when the plaintiff was minor is not valid and for injunction Suit and first appeal dismissed On second appeal, held that any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian has to be questioned by the minor or any person claiming under him, within a period of three years for setting aside a transfer made by the guardian of a minor and the period is to be computed the date when the minor attained majority, and the sale is voidable in character and not void ab-initio. Appeal dismissed. 2007 (4) TLNJ 53 (Civil) Special Officer, Sivagangai Paiyur Pillaivayal Primary Co-op. Bank, Pudur Road, Sivaganga Vs. Kannammal and two other Declaration and Injunction The suit for declaration that it belonged to the plaintiff, and for her husband's misappropriation in the defendants bank, it tries to bring the property for sale it belong to her husband's property. The trial court dismissed the suit and the appellate court reversed it. On appeal by the bank to the High Court, it was held that the joint execution of a mortgage deed by a person, who is not entitled to a property, cannot be clothed him with any right or title over the property. Appeal dismissed.

(2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1542 Padmanabhan Vs. Nagajothi and Another

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 125, 126 (2), 397 (3), 482 Respondents claimed maintenance from petitioner Ex-parte order passed on account of non appearance of the petitioner Filed C.M.P. to set aside ex-parte order Petition dismissed Aggrieved revision filed before Fast Track Court Revision dismissed Hence the petitioner filed this Criminal Orginal Petition Summon not personally served by the trial Court Only after knowing the ex-parte order petitioner the petition for setting aside the order the very next day Respondents contended the petitioner is precluded from filing original petitioner as the remedy already exhausted of revisional proceedings in Fast Track Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Held, invoking inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not at all a bar Present petition legally maintainable Summons not personally served as contemplated under Sec.64 read with Sections 69 and 70 of the Code Petitioner had knowledge later to be necessarily relied upon Ex-parte order set aside The present petition cannot be termed as substitute for second revision Court has plenary power under Section 482 of the Code Can maintain petition to set aside ex-parte order from the date of his knowledge.

(2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1481 S. Sugumar @ Workshop Kumar Vs. Judicial Magistrate, Palani and Others Tamil Nadu Prison Manual, Rule 831 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 Petitioner-under trial objecting for hand -cuffing during transit from jail to Court His protest in vain Eleven previous cases of theft and house breaking under Sections 379 and 457 Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) Petition under Section 482 To direct respondents to take proper steps No incident to show that he is a violent type of criminal nor one prone to resort to violence Rule 831 always subject to mandates set in Sunil Gupta's case by Supreme Court Held, no necessity on the part of the police to hand-cuff the petitioner No mala fide intention seen on the part of the police other than playing safe.

(2007) 2 MLJ 1506 Uma Manickam Vs. Inspector of Police, V-1, Villivakkam Police Station, Chennai and Others

Constitution of India ( 1950) Article 226 Mental Health Act (14 of 1987), Sections 20 to 30 Habeas Corpus petition Impugned Reception order passed by Judicial Magistrate directing Director of Institute of Mental Health, to detain alleged mentally ill person for period of thirty days Held, requirements under Sections 20(6) and 21 of Act read with Section 30 of Act, grossly violated Lapse on part of Magistrate for having passed reception order for thirty days continuously Detenu suffered illegal detention as he is a normal person, as also so opined and recorded in earlier order As such, detenu, set at liberty forthwith As case involves corrupt practice adopted in detaining detenu illegally taking recourse to provisions of Act, further investigation, with regard to entire issue, referred to Special Investigating Officer of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption.

(2007) 2 MLJ (Crl ) 1557 R.Karuppaiah Vs. Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur and Others

Constitution of India (1950), Article 226 Non-statutory Habeas Corpus Petition Complaint of ''Man missing'' or ''illegal custody'' Police authority closed the complaint referring as 'mistake of fact' on the ground that the matter is of civil dispute between parties Ought not to have closed without a proper investigation Such Petitions / Complaints shall not be treated casually Since such Petitions / Complaints espouses the infringement of the personal liberty of an individual which is guaranteed under Constitution of India Petition disposed of with directions.

(2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1566 Senthilvel Vs. State by Station House Officer, All Women Police Station, Pondicherry

Indian Penal Code ( 45 of 1860), Section 498-A Allegation of harassment and demand of dowry by wife against her husband-A-1 Trial Court convicting A-1 under Section 498-A and sentencing him to imprisonment till raising of Court and fine of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to wife as compensation Appeal against by A1- Held, the prosecution case has been proved by the evidence of P.W.5, an independent witness Her evidence is corroborated by P.W.2 to 4 Trial Judge has taken a lenient view in awarding sentence Well considered judgment of Trial Court does not warrant interference Appeal dismissed. 2007 4 L.W. 370 P. Chinnathai Selva Rani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep by its Sec., Education Department, Chennai-9 and two others. Age/ Correction of date of birth in S.S.L.C. book, C.P.C., Section 9/ Age, Correction, Education / SSLC Scheme Rules, Subsidiary Rule 5 Second Appeal arose out of dismissal of suit for declaration of birth and seeking mandatory injunction for alteration in the S.S.L.C. book, and decision affirmed on appeal Held: the certificate (Ex.B3 issued by the Municipality) had been obtained belatedly and relief has been sought for much belatedly, reliance cannot be placed on Ex.A-3, even though her name is mentioned in the certificate Even on equity, the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration Hence there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the reasonings of the Courts below. Second Appeal Dismissed.