No.
Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.
Suit under Sec. 6 Sp. Rlf. Act is a ‘Summary’ one, for Three Reasons
A suit filed under Sec. 6 (Specific Relief Act) is said to be a ‘Summary Suit’. It is for three reasons:
- No adjudication on title.
- Only issue germane is whether ‘illegal dispossession’.
- No Appeal or Review from the Judgment thereon.
It is noteworthy that it is not a suit that falls under Order XXXVII CPC (‘Summary Procedure’).
Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act
Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act, reads as under:
- “6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property.—(1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person through whom he has been in possession or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit.
- (2) No suit under this section shall be brought— (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government.
- (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.
- (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof.”
What is Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
When attracted?
- A person (in actual possession) has been dispossessed.
- From an immovable property.
- Without his consent and.
- Otherwise than in due course of law.
Who can file a suit?
- Person who has been dispossessed or
- Any person through whom he has been in possession or
- Any person claiming through him
What should be the suit for?
- Recover possession of the immoveable property.
What are the characteristics of such a suit?
- It is a special remedy, notwithstanding any other title the plaintiff may have, or he could set up.
- The must be brought within the six months of dispossession.
- No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed; there will be no review also.
- This section does not bar the person dispossessed (etc.) to file a suit to establish his title and to recover possession thereof.
- No suit can be filed against the Government under this section.
- Sec. 6(4) of the Sp. Relief Act will not preclude the defendant from recovering the property based on title.
- A suit under Sec. 6 is maintainable even against the true owner of the property.
Sec. 6 – Only Issue – Whether Plaintiff Illegally Dispossessed
In I.T.C. Limited v. Adarsh Co-op. Housing Soc. Ltd., 2013-10 SCC 169, it is observed that “illegal dispossession” is the only issue germane to a suit under Sec. 6. It is held as under:
- “In fact, in a suit under Section 6, the only question that has to be determined by the Court is whether the plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property and he had been illegally dispossessed therefrom on any date within six months prior to the filing of the suit. … As the question of possession and illegal dispossession therefrom is the only issue germane to a suit under Section 6, a proceeding thereunder, naturally, would partake the character of a summary proceeding against which the remedy by way of appeal or review has been specifically excluded by sub-Section 3 of Section 6. … (The Court referred to: Lallu Yashwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh, AIR 1968 SC 620, Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2097 and Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Gulabahar Sheikh, 2004-4 SCC 664).
Why Called “Summary Suit” – No Adjudication on Title and No Appeal
In Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Gulabahar Sheikh, 2004-4 SCC 664, it is explained as under:
- “4. A suit under Section 6 of the Act is often called a summary suit inasmuch as the enquiry in the suit under Section 6 is confined to finding out the possession and dispossession within a period of six months from the date of the institution of the suit ignoring the question of title. Sub-Section (3) of Section 6 provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section. No review of any such order or decree is permitted. The remedy of a person unsuccessful in a suit under Section 6 of the Act is to file a regular suit establishing his title to the suit property and in the event of his succeeding he will be entitled to recover possession of the property notwithstanding the adverse decision under Section 6 of the Act. Thus, as against a decision under Section 6 of the Act, the remedy of unsuccessful party is to file a suit based on title. The remedy of filing a revision is available but that is only by way of an exception; for the High Court would not interfere with a decree or order under Section 6 of the Act except on a case for interference being made out within the well-settled parameters of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.” (Quoted in: I. T. C. Limited v. Adarsh Co-op. Housing Soc. Ltd., 2013-10 SCC 169.)
“Unjustly Denied by an Illegal Act of dispossession”
The Supreme Court, in Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. Gulbahar Sheikh, (2004) 4 SCC 664, held that Sec. 6 is to give immediate relief to the person who has been illegally dispossessed from the property. The Court held as under:
- “A proceeding under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is intended to be a summary proceeding the object of which is to afford an immediate remedy to an aggrieved party to reclaim possession of which he may have been unjustly denied by an illegal act of dispossession.” (Same words in Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan, 2013 (9) SCC 221, also. Quoted in: P. Thankamma v. Sajitha G. Nair, 2014-2 KHC 151; 2014-2 KLT 110)
Title or better possession not arise for Adjudication
In I. T. C. Limited v. Adarsh Co-op. Housing Soc. Ltd., 2013-10 SCC 169, it is observed by our Apex Court that Sec. 6 requires adjudication as to illegal dispossession of immovable property, independently of the question of title that may be set up by the defendant in such a suit.
In Mohd. Mehtab Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan, 2013 (9) SCC 221, it is held as under:
- “…. Questions of title or better rights of possession does not arise for adjudication in a suit under Section 6 where the only issue required to be decided is as to whether the plaintiff was in possession at any time 6 months prior to the date of filing of the suit. The legislative concern underlying Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is to provide a quick remedy in cases of illegal dispossession so as to discourage litigants from seeking remedies outside the arena of law. The same is evident from the provisions of Section 6(3) which bars the remedy of an appeal or even a review against a decree passed in such a suit.” (Quoted in: P. Thankamma v. Sajitha G. Nair, 2014-2 KHC 151; 2014-2 KLT 110)
“Dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law”
In Sukhjeet Singh v. Sirajunnisa (Dipak Misra, J.), AIR 2001 MP 59, the tenant handed over the premises to the landlord for the marriage of the landlord’s son. The landlord did not return possession. It is held that possession under Section 6 is not attracted inasmuch as the possession was voluntarily transferred.
Issue is Not Validity of Transaction; But Whether Dispossessed ‘Without His Consent’
In Onama Glass Works Lid. v. Shri Ram Harak Panday, AIR 1966 Madh Pra 282, the Board of Directors of a Company by resolution transferred the companies property, but there was no resolution by the General Body. The Court, on considering the scope of Sec. 6, Sp. Relief Act, held as under:
- “8. …. .This section becomes applicable only when the plaintiff is dispossessed ‘without his consent.’ The matter in issue is not whether the transaction was valid but whether the plaintiff was dispossessed ‘without his consent’. . . . .” (Quoted in: Sukhjeet Singh v. Sirajunnisa, AIR 2001 MP 59)
If “An Iota of Consent”- Cannot Complain of Dispossession
In Sukhjeet Singh v. Sirajunnisa, AIR 2001 MP 59, the learned Judge (as he then was) pointed out the facs of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. K.S. Narayan Iyer, AIR 1965 Madras 122, to establish that “there should not have been an iota of consent in handing over the possession”.
In the said case (Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. K.S. Narayan Iyer) certain property was leased by the Corporation for running of a canteen. The lease was originally for one year. It was renewed thereafter; but declined any further. After the expiry of the notice period the authorities accompanied by Police took possession. The respondents did not protest. Later on he issued a notice to the Corporation calling upon it to pay damages failing which he threatened to take steps for recovery. There was no demand for restoration of possession. The High Court held that the respondent did not intend to hold the possession, and hence, he cannot complain of dispossession and claim relief under Section 9 (Section 6 of New Act) of the Specific Relief Act.
Not to declare evicted person was in Lawful Possession
In M.C. Chockalingam v. Manickavasagam, AIR 1974 SC 104, the Apex Court observed as follows:–
- “13. … . All that Section 6 (new) of the Specific Relief Act provides is that a person, even if he is a landlord, cannot take the law into his own hands and forcibly evict a tenant after expiry of the lease. This section has relevance only to the wrongful act of a person, if it be by the landlord, in forcibly recovering possession of the property without recourse to law. Section 6 frowns upon forcible dispossession without recourse to law but does not at the same time declare that the possession of the evicted person is a lawful possession. . . .” (Quoted in: Sukhjeet Singh v. Sirajunnisa, AIR 2001 MP 59)
Discretionary Revisional Jurisdiction
In Sobhabati v. Lakshmi Chand, AIR 1984 Ori. 171, held that the High Court should not interfere in its discretionary revisional jurisdiction with a decision given under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act as parties have effective remedy by way of suit for declaration of title and possession. (Referred to in Sukhjeet Singh v. Sirajunnisa, AIR 2001 MP 59)
Can Sec. 6 suit be dismissed without trial?
No.
Such a view would be a misapprehension of scope of the section. In such a situation the decision can be interfered in Revision. (Ajodhiya Prasad v. Ghasiram, AIR 1937 Nag. 326. Referred to in Sukhjeet Singh v. Sirajunnisa, AIR 2001 MP 59)
Counter Claim to Set Aside Gift Deed in Sec. 6 Suit – Possible
In P. Thankamma v. Sajitha G. Nair, 2014-2 KHC 151; 2014-2 KLT 110, it is held that the court below had not erred in allowing I.A. for amending the written stat ement in order to set up by way of counter claim in the suit filed under Section 6 of the Act. It is observed as under:
- “…. The enquiry in the suit under Section 6 of the Act and in the counter claim to set aside the Gift Deed vastly differs in its nature and scope. Also the decree in the suit is only open to challenge in a Civil Revision Petition whereas the decree in the counter claim is open to an appeal. But does it mean that a counter claim for setting aside the Gift Deed cannot be permitted to be set up in a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Act? I am afraid not since there is no such limitation to set up by way of counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.”
Doctrine of clean hands in claiming an equitable relief
Halsbury’s Laws of England Fourth Edition Vol.-16 pages 874-876, lays down the legal position on the doctrine of clean hands in claiming an equitable relief as under:
- 1305. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands. A court of equity refuses relief to a plaintiff whose conduct in regard to the subject matter of the litigation has been improper. This was formerly expressed by the maxim “he who has committed iniquity shall not have equity”, and relief was refused where a transaction was based on the plaintiff’s fraud or misrepresentation, or where the plaintiff sought to enforce a security improperly obtained, or where he claimed a remedy for a breach of trust which he had himself procured and whereby he had obtained money. Later it was said that the plaintiff in equity must come with perfect propriety of conduct, or with clean hands. In application of the principle a person will not be allowed to assert his title to property which he has dealt with so as to defeat his creditors or evade tax, for he may not maintain an action by setting up his own fraudulent design.
- The maxim does not, however, mean that equity strikes at depravity in a general way; the cleanliness required is to be judged in relation to the relief sought, and the conduct complained of must have an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for; it must be depravity in a legal as well as in a moral sense. Thus, fraud on the part of a minor deprives him of his right to equitable relief notwithstanding his disability. Where the transaction is itself unlawful it is not necessary to have recourse to this principle. In equity, just as at law, no suit lies in general in respect of an illegal transaction, but this is on the ground of its illegality, not by reason of the plaintiff’s demerits.” (Quoted in: A. S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2013-10 SCC 114.)
How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “
Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):
Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles
Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code
- Suit under Sec. 6, Specific Relief Act – Is it a ‘Summary Suit’ under Order XXXVII CPC?
- Is it Mandatory to Lift the Attachment on Dismissal of the Suit? Will the Attachment Orders Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
- Will Interlocutory Orders and Applications Get Revived on Restoration of Suit?
- Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
- Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
- Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
- Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
- Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
- Pleadings in Defamation Suits
- Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
- UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
- PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
- Declaration and Injunction
- Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
- Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
- Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
- Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
- Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
- Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
- Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
- Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
- Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
- What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
- ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
- Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
- Is it Mandatory to Set Aside the Commission Report – Where a Second Commissioner is Appointed?
- Can a Commission be Appointed to Find Out the Physical Possession of a Property?
- Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
- Pendente Lite Transferee Cannot Resist or Obstruct Execution of a Decree
- Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Will Findings of a Civil Court Outweigh Findings of a Criminal Court?
- Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
Power of attorney
- No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
- Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
- Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit
- If Power of Attorney himself Executes the Document, S. 33 Registration Act will NOT be attracted
- Should a Power of Attorney for Sale must have been Registered –
- Is Registered Power of Attorney Necessary for Registration of a Deed? No.
Title, ownership and Possession
- Section 27, Limitation Act Gives-Rise to a Substantive Right so as to Seek Declaration and Recovery
- Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
- Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
- Recovery of Possession Based on Title and on Earlier Possession
- Title and Ownership in Indian Law
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
- POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
- 22nd Law Commission Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
- Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
- How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
- Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
- Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
- When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
- Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
- ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
- Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- Family Settlement or Family Arrangement in Law
- INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?
- Grant in Law
Adverse Possession
- How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
- Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
- Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
- When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
- Government of Kerala v. Joseph – Law on Adverse Possession Against Government
- ‘Possessory Title’ in Indian Law
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Ouster and Dispossession in Adverse Possession
Principles and Procedure
- Doctrines on Ultra Vires, Rule of Law, Judicial Review, Nullification of Mandamus, and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment
- Can an ‘Ex-parte’ Defendant Cross Examine Plaintiff’s Witness?
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
- Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross-Examination by the Witness
- Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
- Declaration and Injunction
- Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
- Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
- Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
- Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
- Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
- ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
- Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
- Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
- Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
- Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
Admission, Relevancy and Proof
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- Modes of Proof of Documents
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Burden on Plaintiff to Prove Title; Weakness of Defence Will Not Entitle a Decree
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
- Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
- Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting
- Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act
- Tenancy at Sufferance in Indian Law
- Freehold Property in Law
- What is Patta or Pattayam?
- Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
- Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
- Previous Owner is Not a Necessary Party in a Recovery Suit
- Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
- Vested interest and Contingent Interest
- Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
- ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
- FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
- Marumakkathayam – A System of Law and Way of Life Prevailed in Kerala
- Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
- Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
- ‘Janmam’ Right is FREEHOLD Interest and ‘Estate’ in Constitution – By Royal Proclamation of 1899, The Travancore Sircar became Janmi of Poonjar Raja’s Land
- Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
- Sale Deeds Without Consideration – Void
- Law on Acquisition of Private Plantation Land in KeralaLaw on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE
- Grant in Law
Evidence Act – General
- Major Changes in the Evidence Act by Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Evidence in Court – General Principles
- Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
- How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
- Withholding Evidence and Adverse Inference
- Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
- What is Collateral Purpose?
- Burden of Proof – Initial Burden and Shifting Onus
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
- Effect of Not Cross-Examining a Witness & Effect of Not Facing Complete Cross Examination by the Witness
- Suggestions & Admissions by Counsel, in Cross Examination to Witnesses
- Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
- Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
- What is Section 27 Evidence Act – Recovery or Discovery?
- How ‘Discovery’ under Section 27, Evidence Act, Proved?
- Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
- Proof on ‘Truth of Contents’ of Documents, in Indian Evidence Act
Sec. 65B
- Sec. 27 Recovery/Discovery in Evidence Act and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Sec. 65B (Electronic Records) and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
- Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
- ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
- Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Certificate forms
- Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
- How to Prove ‘Whatsap Messages’, ‘Facebook’ and ‘Website’ in Courts?
Law on Documents
- Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
- Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
- Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
- Time Limit for Registration of Documents
- Registration of Documents Executed out of India
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as ‘Public Documents’?
- Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
- Effect of Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
- Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
- Notary-Attested Documents and Presumptions
- What is Collateral Purpose?
- No Application Needed for Filing or Admitting Copy
- Presumptions on Documents and Truth of Contents
- Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
- Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
- Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
- Proof of Documents – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
- Modes of Proof of Documents
- Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
- 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
- Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
- Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
- Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
- Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
- Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting
- How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
- Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
- Pictorial Testimony Theory and Silent Witnesses Theory
- No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
- Impounding of Documents – When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
Interpretation
- Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
- Interpretation of Documents – Literal Rule, Mischief Rule and Golden Rule
- Interpretation of Wills
- Appreciation of Evidence by Court and ‘Preponderance of Probabilities’ & ‘Probative Value of Evidence
Contract Act
- ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
- Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
- Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
- UNDUE INFLUENCE and PLEADINGS thereof in Indian Law
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
Law on Damages
- Law on Damages
- Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
- Law on Damages in Defamation Cases
- Pleadings in Defamation Suits
Easement
- Easement Simplified
- What is Easement? Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
- Prescriptive Rights – Inchoate until the Title thereof is Upheld by a Competent Court
- Will Easement of Necessity Ripen into a Prescriptive Easement?
- What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit” in Easement by Prescription?
- Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
- Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
- Easement of Necessity and Prescriptive Easement are Mutually Destructive; But, Easement of Necessity and Implied Grant Can be Claimed Alternatively
- Can Easement of Necessity and of Grant be Claimed in a Suit (Alternatively)?
- “Implied Grant” in Law of Easements
- Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
- Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
- Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
- ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition
- Grant in Law
Stamp Act & Registration
- Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Registering Deeds
- Time-Limit For Adjudication of Unstamped Documents, before Collector
- Time Limit for Registration of Documents
- Presumptions on Registered Documents & Truth of Contents
- Registration of Documents Executed out of India
- LAW ON INSUFFICIENTLY STAMPED DOCUMENTS
- Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
- Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
- Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
- Impounding of Documents, When Produced; Cannot Wait Till it is Exhibited
- No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
- Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
Will
- Witnesses to the Will Need Not See the Execution of the Will
- Interpretation of Wills
- Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
- Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
- Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal
- How to Prove a Will, in Court?Is Presumption enough to Prove a Registered Will?
- How to Write a Will? Requirements of a Valid Will
- When Execution of a Will is ‘Admitted’ by the Opposite Side, Should it be ‘Proved’?
Arbitration
- Seesaw of Supreme Court in NN Global Mercantile v. Indo Unique Flame
- N.N. Global Mercantile (P) Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. and Ground Realities of Indian Situation
- What are Non-Arbitrable Disputes? When a Dispute is Not Referred to Arbitration in spite of Arbitration Clause
- Termination or Nullity of Contract Will Not Cease Efficacy of the Arbitration Clause
- No Valid Arbitration Agreement ‘Exists’ – Can Arbitration Clause be Invoked?
Divorce/Marriage
- Presumption of Valid Marriage – If lived together for Long Spell
- Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India
- Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?
- Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile
Negotiable Instruments Act
- Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
- “Otherwise Through an Account” in Section 142, NI Act
- Where to file Cheque Bounce Cases (Jurisdiction of Court – to file NI Act Complaint)?
- Cheque Dishonour Case against a Company, Firm or Society
- What is ‘Cognizance’ in Law
Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues
- Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
- Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
- Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
- Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
- Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
- Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
- Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
- Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
- CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
- FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
- Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
- Doctrines on Ultra Vires and Removing the BASIS of the Judgment, in ED Director’s Tenure Extension Case (Dr. Jaya Thakur Vs. Union of India)
- Dr. Jaya Thakur v. Union of India – Mandamus (Given in a Case) Cannot be Annulled by Changing the Law
- Art. 370 – Turns the Constitution on Its Head
Religious issues
- Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
- Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
- ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
- No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
- Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
- Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
- Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
- SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
- Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict
Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India
- General
- Property & Trust
- Juristic Personality
- Suits
- Amendment and Dissolution
- Rights and Management
- Election
- State Actions
Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India
- General Principles
- Dedication and Vesting
- Trustees and Management
- Breach of Trust
- Suits by or against Trusts
- Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
- Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
- Constitutional Principles
- Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
- General
Sec.11 Court Fees Act, regarding Past and Future mesne profits.The Judgment asked the plaintiff to deposit the court fees on amount awarded so that the decree may be issued, will this court fees be accounted as part of the cost of the suit or cost of execution of decree?
Thanks
Ranaji
LikeLike