Citation-5

1.              Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss. 376, 506 – Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 482 – Constitution of India, Art. 226 – Quashing of FIR. – Dismissal of application – Challenge against – Relationship between appellant and victim was a consensual relationship which culminated in marriage – In legal notice issued on behalf of appellant, factum of marriage was admitted – Prima facie, allegation that physical relationship was maintained due to false promise given by appellant to marry was without basis as their relationship had led to solemnisation of marriage – There was no ground for proceeding against appellant – Order refusing to quash FIR was set aside and case registered against appellant was quashed.  AIR 1992 SC 604, Followed. (Paras 9, 10, 11).  Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. AIR 2024 SUPREME COURT 257; AIROnline 2024 SC 11.

2.                Commercial Courts Act (4 of 2016), Ss. 6, 10, 15, 16 – Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), Sch. (As amended by Commercial Courts Act 4 of 2016) – Execution of Arbitral Award – Jurisdiction of Court – Commercial Court has jurisdiction to execute its own decree or a decree transferred/sent to it, where value is above specified limit – Regular Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain execution petitions with effect from 16.05.2019 in State of Andhra Pradesh – All orders passed after 16.05.2019 are orders passed by a coram non-judice and suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction and they are held to be per se bad in law.  Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. v. R.K. Mining Private Limited AIR 2024 ANDHRA PRADESH 30: AIROnline 2023 AP 1229.

3.                Hindu Marriage Act (2 of 1955) , S. 13 (1) (i-a), (i-b) – Divorce – On ground of cruelty and desertion – Petition by husband – Behaviour of wife towards husband and his family members was cruel from date of their marriage itself – She deprived husband of conjugal rights – Allegation by wife that husband demanded dowry and on account of non-fulfilment of same she was thrown out of her matrimonial house – Neither wife filed any complaint against husband nor she could prove same before Lower Court – Parties lived together for three months – Wife failed to prove that her marriage with husband was consummated – She had failed to discharge her obligations as wife – Husband by sending news of his Uncle’s demise as well as invitations of wedding of his brother and sister made attempt to come together, which miserably failed, due to unwillingness of wife – It was proved that wife wilfully deserted husband – Divorce, rightly granted. 

       AIR 1990 SC 594, AIR 1957 SC 176, Followed. AIR 1981 DEL  53, Relied on. (Paras 12, 19, 28, 29) Urmila Devi v. Uma Shankar AIR 2024 DELHI 30: AIROnline 2023 DEL 1302.

4.              (A) Himachal Pradesh Court-Fees Act (8 of 1968), S. 7 – Computation of fees – Improper valuation of court-fees – suit for declaration and possession – Plea of defendant that since plaintiff had admitted the existence of orchard over suit land, she should have valued the sui land on market value of orchard – Not tenable as raising of orchard was immaterial to determine the court-fees and jurisdiction. 

       Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S. 34 .  AIR Online 1975 HP2, 2004 Latest HLJ 655, Relied on. (Paras 15,17)  Banka Dei (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Watuli Devi AIR 2024 HIMACHAL PRADESH 26: AIROnline 2023 HP 1274. 

5.              (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34 – Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Arts. 64, 65 – Suit for declaration and possession – Adverse possession – Plea of adverse possession will not be available to defendant in absence of pleadings and proof regarding denial of title of real owner – Adverse possession was asserted by defendant for first time in September, 2013 – Suit was filed in May 2014 – Statutory period for acquisition of title on adverse possession was not completed – Moreover, title of plaintiff was not in dispute – Plea of adverse possession, not tenable – Furthermore, defendant had claimed to be in possession by way of an agreement to sell – Agreement to sell was not proved – Even agreement does not show that possession was delivered to the defendant pursuant to said agreement – Benefit of S. 53A of T.P. Act will not be available to defendant – Defendant had to right to retain possession – Order of First Appellate Court in granting decree of possession in favour of plaintiff held, proper. 

       Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S. 53 A AIR 2000 SC 1485, AIR 1990 SC 553, followed AIR 2020 (NOC) 290 (HP), AIROnline 2012 HP 18, Relied on. (Paras 18, 19,21, 25,26, 27).   Banka Dei (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Watuli Devi AIR 2024 HIMACHAL PRADESH 26: AIROnline 2023 HP 1274. 

6.              (C)  Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34 – Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O. 1 R.9 – Suit for declaration and possession – Non-joinder of parties – Effect – Plaintiff was recorded to be the co-owner – Co-owner can always file a suit for recovery of possession – Suit filed by the plaintiff was not bad for non-joinder of other co-owners. 

       AIR 2005 Himachal Pradesh 10, Relied on. (Paras 20,21).  Banka Dei (Dead) By L.Rs. v. Watuli Devi AIR 2024 HIMACHAL PRADESH 26: AIROnline 2023 HP 1274. 

7.              Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 38 – Suit for permanent injunction – Restraining defendant from interfering with possession of suit property – As per plaintiff, property was purchased from vendor and he was in possession of property – Further plea that without any authority defendant encroached upon his property – Plaintiff categorically admitted that possession was not delivered and defendant encroached the property – When plaintiff failed to establish possession, question of granting relief of permanent injunction does not arise.  (Para 10) S. Subramani v. Gangalakshamamma AIR 2024 KARNATAKA 27: AIROnline 2023 KAR 1538. 

8.              As per S. 105 of T.P. Act, lease is transfer of right to enjoy immovable property for certain period expressly, impliedly or in perpetuity.  On the other hand, ‘licence’ as defined u/S. 52 of the Easement Act is a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon immovable property of grantor, something which would in absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to easement or interest in property.  The lessee of building/premises, who got exclusive possession coupled with transfer of interest therein, has right to possess and enjoy building/premises; whereas licensee of building, who got mere right of occupation of premises/building without transfer of any interest therein, does not have such right of absolute possession and enjoyment of building/premises and his right is to do or continue to do specific business or trade only in building/premises for which permission was granted by licensor as occupant of building/premises.  AIR 2002 SC 2051, AIR 1968 SC 175, Followed (Paras 15, 20) C.D. Varghese v. Joseph Mani and anr. AIR 2024 KERALA 27: AIROnline 2023 KER 661.  

9.              Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), Ss. 16, 20 – Suit for specific performance – Readiness and willing ness – Plaintiff-vendee at no point of time, despite specific demand made by defendant, had come with balance money and offered same to defendant and get sale deed registered – Mere presence of plaintiff before Sub-Registrar would be of no avail because it was not proved that plaintiff was ready with money and pleadings only demonstrated that plaintiff was only present before Sub-Registrar – As plaintiff failed to show that he had sufficient funds at all relevant time, absence of defendant on two occasions before Registrar cannot be put against defendants – As plaintiff was not ready and willing to pay balance sale consideration, question of annulling sale deed executed by defendant in favour of co-defendants did not require to be adjudicated upon – Decree of suit in favour of plaintiff was set aside.  (Paras 28 (a), (b), (c), 32) K.S. Abdul Rajak and another v. Shanmugam and others  AIR 2024 MADRAS 44: AIROnline 2023 MAD 1666. 

10.           Right to Information Act (22 of 2005), Ss. 8 (1)(j), 6 (1) – ‘Personal information’ – Exemption from disclosure – Petitioner – Corporation was a ‘public authority’ – Applicant had sought information regarding communication between petitioner and Mining Corporation regarding performance, pendency of vigilance case as well as departmental proceeding in respect of said applicant – Information sought was not simple personal information as it became an information with regard to communication between two Corporations regarding personal data of applicant and it lost its character of being personal information of applicant – While information did not involve and public activity or interest, but disclosure of same would certainly amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy of two juristic persons – Information fell under exemption as provided under S.8(1) (j) and same was not needed to be disclosed to applicant – Order directing petitioner to furnish information sought by applicant was set aside. (Paras 15, 16, 19, 20, 21).  M/s. Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar v. Orissa State Information Commission and another.  AIR 2024 ORISSA 26: AIR Online 2023 ORI 753.

11.           Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O. 7 R. 11(a), (d) – Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 17 (1A) – Rejection of plaint – Refusal – Plea that suit for specific performance since based on unregistered agreement to sell was liable to be rejected and in such circumstances, no cause of action arose for filing the suit – Genuineness, validity and binding nature of document would be adjudicated at appropriate stage after parties adduce oral and documentary evidence – At this stage Court is not concerned with correctness of averments, except to state that plaintiff has to discharge the burden of proving his case – It cannot be said that statement made in plaint does not disclose a cause of action and plaint shall be rejected – Even where agreement is not registered, it can be received as evidence for considering the relief of specific performance and inadmissibility will confine itself only to the protection sought under S. 53A of the T.P. Act – Refusal to reject plaint was proper.  Musmat Shanti Devi and another v. Lallu Ram and others.  AIR 2024 PATNA 26: AIROnline 2023 PAT 754. 

12.           Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), Ss. 125, 127 – Maintenance – Second application – previously maintenance was granted by Court – Thereafter parties entered into agreement and were reunited but again relations became strained – hence wife filed second application – Order of maintenance was never set aside, altered or modified – If parties had resumed cohabitation after passing of order in first maintenance case, it would not alter statutory nature of said order and it would remain operative – Hence subsequent application was not maintainable – IN subsequent application wife had requested for maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- p.m. – Under facts and circumstances of case, subsequent application u/S. 125 of Code may be treated as application u/S. 127 and parties may be permitted to lead evidence on that aspect.  Seema Devi and others v. State of Uttarakhand and another.  AIR 2024 UTTARAKHAND 25: AIROnline 2023 UTR 410.