Taken from: What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate

Jojy George Koduvath

Abstract

Section 202 CrPC Enquiry

The Sec. 202 enquiry can be by –

• the Magistrate himself – who takes cognisance of an offence
  • (upon a complaint or
  • police report or
  • upon his own knowledge)
• or any Magistrate subordinate to him,
• or by a police officer,
• or by such other person as he thinks fit.

Purpose of Sec. 202 enquiry

• The purpose is – “deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.”

In Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, 2006-1 SCC (Cri.) 460 laid down the relevant principles under Sec. 202 as under:

• “9. But a Magistrate need not order any such investigation if he proposes to take cognizance of the offence. Once he takes cognizance of the offence he has to follow the procedure envisaged in Chapter XV of the Code. A reading of Section 202(1) of the Code makes the position clear that the investigation referred to therein is of a limited nature. The Magistrate can direct such an investigation to be made either by a police officer or by any other person. Such investigation is only for helping the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. This can be discerned from the culminating words in Section 202(1) i.e. “or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding.”
• 10. This is because he has already taken cognizance of the offence disclosed in the complaint, and the domain of the case would thereafter vest with him.”

In Jamuna Singh v. Bhadai Shah, AIR 1964 SC 1541, it is observed as under:

• “.. . when on a petition of complaint being filed before him a Magistrate applies his mind for proceeding under the various provisions of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must be held to have taken cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint. When however he applies his mind not for such purpose but for purposes of ordering investigation under s. 156(3) or issues a search warrant for the purpose of investigation he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. It was so held by this Court in R.R. Chari v. State of U. P. and again in Gopal Das v. State of, Assam. In the case before us the Magistrate after receipt of Bhadai Sah’s complaint proceeded to examine him under s. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section itself states that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath. This examination by the Magistrate under s. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure puts it beyond doubt that the Magistrate did take cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint. After completing such examination and recording the substance of it to writing as required by s. 200 the Magistrate could have issued process at once under s. 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or could have dismissed the complaint under s. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also open to him, before taking either of these courses, to take action under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Scope of 202 Enquiry -“Ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint”

In Jamuna Singh v. Bhadai Shah, AIR 1964 SC 1541, it is observed further as under:

• “That section (s. 202) empowers the Magistrate to “postpone the issue of process for compelling the attendance of persons complained against, and either enquire into the case himself or if he is a Magistrate other than a Magistrate of the third class, direct an enquiry or investigation to be made by any Magistrate subordinate to him, or by a police officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint.”

In Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar, AIR 1960 SC 1113, also it was observed that the purpose of Section 202 of CrPC was to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint for ascertaining whether there was a sufficient evidence available in support of issuance of the summoning order.

Not Proper to Order to “Institute a Case” under Sec. 202 (Only Investigation)

In Anand Kumar Pandey v. State of U. P. , 2020-1 All.CR 899, it is found as under:

• If and when such investigation or inquiry is ordered the result of the investigation or inquiry has to be taken into consideration before the Magistrate takes any action under s. 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• We find that in the case before us the Magistrate after completing the examination under s. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recording the substance of it made the order in these words :–
  • “Examined the complaint on s.a. The offence is cognizable one. To S.I. Bakunthpur for instituting a case and report by 12.12.56.”
• If the learned Magistrate had used the words “for investigation” instead of the words “for instituting a case” the order would clearly be under s. 202(1) the Code of Criminal Procedure. We do not think that the fact that he used the words “for instituting a case” makes any difference. It has to be noticed that the Magistrate was not bound to take cognizance of the offences on receipt of the complaint. He could have, without taking cognizance, directed an investigation of the case by the police under s. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once however he took cognizance he could order investigation by the police only under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under s. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As it is clear here from the very fact that he took action under s. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he had taken cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint, it was open to him to order investigation only under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under s. 156(3) of the Code. It would be proper in these circumstances to hold that though the Magistrate used the words “for instituting a case” in this order of November 22, 1956 he was actually taking action under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that being the only section under which he was in law entitled to act.”

Police Investigation u/Sec. 156(3) & 202(1) – Two Operate in Distinct Spheres;

Section 202 is Not to initiate a Fresh Case on Police Report – Only to see “Sufficient Ground to proceed”

In Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (1976) 3 SCC 252, it is pointed out as under:

• “17. Section 156(3) occurs in Chapter XII, under the caption: “Information to the Police and their powers to investigate”; while Section 202 is in Chapter XV which bears the heading: “Of complaints to Magistrates”.
• The power to order police investigation under Section 156(3) is different from the power to direct investigation conferred by Section 202(1). The two operate in distinct spheres at different stages. The first is exercisable at the precognizance stage, the second at the post-cognizance stage when the Magistrate is in seisin of the case. That is to say in the case of a complaint regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the power under Section 156(3) can be invoked by the Magistrate before he takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a). But if he once takes such cognizance and embarks upon the procedure embodied in Chapter XV, he is not competent to switch back to the pre-cognizance stage and avail of Section 156(3). It may be noted further that an order made under sub- section (3) of Section 156, is in the nature of a peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation under Section 156(1). Such an investigation embraces the entire continuous process which begins with the collection of evidence under Section 156 and ends with a report or charge-sheet under Section 173. On the other hand, Section 202 comes in at a stage when some evidence has been collected by the Magistrate in proceedings under Chapter XV, but the same is deemed insufficient to take a decision as to the next step in the prescribed procedure. In such a situation, the Magistrate is empowered under Section 202 to direct, within the limits circumscribed by that section an investigation “for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding”. Thus the object of an investigation under Section 202 is not to initiate a fresh case on police report but to assist the Magistrate in completing proceedings already instituted upon a complaint before him.” This judgment was then followed in Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh (1977) 4 SCC 459 at paragraphs 11 and 15.” (Quoted in Anand Kumar Pandey v. State Of U. P. , 2020-1 All.CR 899)

Final Report under Sec. 173 and Cognizance by the Magistrate

• On getting the 156(3) Order, the police will register an FIR and investigate the matter.
• Finally, the police submits a report under Section 173(2).
• On receiving the police report the Magistrate –
  • (a) takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(c) and issue process to the accused – even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out. [Note: Magistrate takes cognizance, not because he is bound by the Sec. 173 Police Report; but, because – on ‘application of judicial mind‘ on the Report, the Magistrate finds it proper “to proceed” under 204.]
  • (b) proceeds to act under Section 200, by taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted to him, and proceed to record the statement upon oath of the complaint and the witnesses present and thereafter decide whether the complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.
  • (c) takes further evidence or conduct further investigation, under Sec. 202 (he cannot go back to 156(3) – pre cognisance stage) to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground to proceed.
  • (d) drops the proceedings if it is satisfied (on applying his judicial mind – without regard to the opinion on the police officer as to grounds to ‘proceed’ against the accused) that there is no sufficient material to take cognizance of the offence.

In India Carat Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, 1989 (2) SCC 132, it is observed as under:

• “13. From the provisions referred to above, it may be seen that on receipt of a complaint a Magistrate has several courses open to him…..  …… … …Yet another course open to the Magistrate is that instead of taking cognizance of the offence and following the procedure laid down under Section 200 or Section 202, he may order an investigation to be made by the police under Section 156(3). When such an order is made, the police will have to investigate the matter and submit a report under Section 173(2). On receiving the police report the Magistrate may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(c) and issue process straightaway to the accused. The Magistrate may exercise his powers in this behalf irrespective of the view expressed by the police in their report whether an offence has been made out or not. This is because the police report under Section 173(2) will contain the facts discovered or unearthed by the police as well as the conclusion drawn by the police therefrom. If the Magistrate is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police there is sufficient material for him to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the Magistrate may do so without reference to the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Officer because the Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the police officer as to whether an offence has been made out or not. Alternately the Magistrate, on receiving the police report, may without issuing process or dropping the proceeding proceed to act under Section 200 by taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the complaint originally submitted to him and proceed to record the statement upon oath of the complaint and the witnesses present and thereafter decide whether the complaint should be dismissed or process should be issued.”

Magistrate has to independently apply his mind on a final report

A Magistrate can, independently apply his mind to a police report. He is not bound to follow the procedure under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code for taking cognizance. (It is, however, open to the Magistrate to do so: Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 3482; 2019-8 SCC 27). It is held in Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC 768as under:

• “6. There is no provision in the Code to file a protest petition by the informant who lodged the first information report. But this has been the practice. Absence of a provision in the Code relating to filing of a protest petition has been considered. This Court in Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police [(1985) 2 SCC 537 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267 : AIR 1985 SC 1285] stressed on the desirability of intimation being given to the informant when a report made under Section 173(2) is under consideration. The Court held as follows: (SCC p. 542, para 4)
• “There can, therefore, be no doubt that when, on a consideration of the report made by the officer in charge of a police station under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173, the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. We are accordingly of the view that in a case where the Magistrate to whom a report is forwarded under sub-section (2)(i) of Section 173 decides not to take cognizance of the offence and to drop the proceeding or takes the view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the first information report, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report.” (Quoted in: Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 3482; 2019-8 SCC 27)

Enquiry under Section 202 is extremely limited

The Supreme Court in Fiona Shrikhande v. State of Maharashtra,  2013-14 SCC 44, observed as under:

• “At the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to “Prima Facie satisfy” whether there are “sufficient grounds to proceed” against the accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate to enquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely limitedin the sense that the Magistrate, at this stage, is expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint.”

In Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P., 2001(2) S.C.C. 628, the Supreme Court observed as under:

• “Section 156, falling within Chapter XII, deals with powers of the Police Officers to investigate cognizable offences. Section 202 which falls under Chapter XV, also refers to the power of a Magistrate to “direct an investigation by a Police Officer”. But the investigation envisaged in section 202 is different from the investigation contemplated in section 156 of the Code. The significant point to be noticed is that when a Magistrate orders investigation under Chapter XII he does so before he takes cognizance of the offence. A Magistrate need not order any such investigation if he proposes to take cognizance of the offence. Once he takes cognizance of the offence he has to follow the procedure envisaged in Chapter XV of the Code. A reading of section 202(1) Cri.P.C. would convince that the investigation referred to therein is of a limited nature. The Magistrate can direct such an investigation to be made either by a Police Officer or by any other person. Such investigation is only for helping the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.”

Magistrate can take cognizance even if police report is – no case made out

In Jitender Mehta v. Shivani Mehta, (M.K. Hanjura, J.), AIR OnLine 2018 J & K 546;  2018 Kash LJ 918, it is held as under:

• “23. The position is, thus, clear that when a Magistrate receives police report under Section 173(2), he is entitled to take cognizance of an offence even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against the accused. The Magistrate can take into account the statements of the witnesses examined by the police during the investigation and other material collected during investigation and form his own opinion independently without being bound by the conclusions arrived at by the investigating agency and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code and direct the issue of process to the accused.”

Magistrate cannot use any material other than Police investigation records; Magistrate to follow the Procedure under Sec. 200 and 202

In Jitender Mehta v. Shivani Mehta, AIR OnLine 2018 J & K 546;  2018 Kash LJ 918, it is also held as under:

• “However, the Magistrate cannot make use of any material or evidence other than the investigation records while acting under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code. If he chooses to make use of any materials other than the investigation records, he will have to follow the procedure laid down in relation to complaint cases, on the basis of original complaint or application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which otherwise tantamount to complaint or the Protest petition filed against acceptance of final report treating the same as complaint.
• This proposition would be in consonance with the provision of Section 207 which inter-alia provides for supply of copy of statements recorded under Sub-section (3) of Section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses and any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under Sub-section (5) of Section 173.”

Standard of Proof of Evidence at Sec. 202-Stage

• The complaint filed by a private party can be dismissed by the learned Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C., if he thinks that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. While exercising his discretionary powers, the Magistrate should not allow himself to evaluate and appreciate the sworn statements recorded by him under Section 202 Cr.P.C. All that he could do would be, to consider as to whether there is a Prima Facie case for a criminal offence, which, in his judgment, would be sufficient to call upon the alleged offender to answer. At the stage of Section 202 Cr.P.C. enquiry, the standard of proof which is required finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise should not be applied at the initial stage. [Ponnal @ Kalaiyarasi v. Rajamanickam, 1998 Cri LJ 4333; 1998 (4) Crimes 543 (Mad)]

Accused has no right of hearing until Issueance of Process

In Manharibhai Mujlibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, 2012-10 SCC 517, it is observed as under:

• “46. The legal position is fairly well-settled that in the proceedings Under Section 202 of the Code the accused/suspect is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. As a matter of law, upto the stage of issuance of process, the accused cannot claim any right of hearing. Section 202 contemplates postponement of issue of process where the Magistrate is of an opinion that further inquiry into the complaint either by himself is required and he proceeds with the further inquiry or directs an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. If the Magistrate finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint and dismisses the complaint under Section 203 of the Code, the question is whether a person accused of crime in the complaint can claim right of hearing in a revision application preferred by the complainant against the order of the dismissal of the complaint. The Parliament being alive to the legal position that the accused/suspects are not entitled to be heard at any stage of the proceedings until issuance of process Under Section 204, yet in Section 401(2) of the Code provided that no order in exercise of the power of the revision shall be made by the Sessions Judge or the High Court, as the case may be, to the prejudice of the accused or the other person unless he had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.”
• See contra view below.

Contra View – Once a Final Report (favourable to Accused), Accused be heard before rejecting it

Though accused has no right of hearing until Issue of Process, as shown above, in Jitender Mehta v. Shivani Mehta, AIR OnLine 2018 J & K 546;  2018 Kash LJ 918, it is held as under:

• “25. The learned counsel for the petitioner has energetically argued that the impugned order dated 25th November 2006 was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. His submission is that once there is a Final Report, then, before the Magistrate rejects the same, he must hear the accused. In this connection it may be mentioned that the Supreme Court in Bhagwant v. Commissioner, AIR. 1985 SC 1285, has held that prior to accepting the Final Report, a notice must be given to the first informant or a person aggrieved and such a person must be heard. The ratio of the said decision will be applicable to a contrary case as well, like the present one. In the present case, the petitioner is an accused in a case in which a Final Report has been submitted. His grievance, and rightly so, is that before rejecting the Final Report he should have been heard. It is true that there is no statutory provision that before rejecting the Final Report the Magistrate must hear the accused but there is also no statutory requirement that before accepting the Final Report the complainant should be heard. If it is held that before accepting the Final Report the complainant must be heard, then it cannot be understood by what logic the accused should be denied a right of hearing before the Final Report is rejected. The same principle should apply to the complainant and the accused alike.”
• 26. The Supreme Court in recent years has been steadily widening the scope of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
• In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (which is a Seven Judge Constitution Bench decision) the Supreme Court has emphasised that even where there is no specific statutory requirement the principles of natural justice may apply. It has been also held that the procedure for depriving a man of his life and liberty must be fair, reasonable and just. Similarly, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1825 it was held by the Supreme Court that “every facet of the law which deprives a person of life or personal liberty would therefore have to stand the test of reasonableness, fairness and justice in order to be outside the inhibition of Article 21”. Having said so, once a Final Report is submitted, then before its rejection the accused should be heard, for, it may be that he may be able to persuade the Magistrate that the Final Report was justified and no case is made out against him. It will be unfair to hear only the person filing the protest petition but not the accused. Where a protest petition is filed against a Final Report, both the parties should be heard as that procedure would be fair to the accused and the complainant and hence in accordance with the trend of the decisions of the Supreme Court (from Maneka Gandhi’s case onwards) in which the scope of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution has been greatly expanded and it has been laid down that the procedure should be just, fair and reasonable. Once a final report is filed it is only fair and reasonable that the accused should be heard before rejecting the Final Report and taking cognizance. I do not mean to say that cognizance cannot be taken on the basis of the final report. The Supreme Court in M/s India Carat Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) has held that this can be done. But fairness demands that this should be done only after hearing the accused, otherwise the accused may be put to unnecessary harassment.

Magistrate takes a judicial decision on the Final Report

Jitender Mehta v. Shivani Mehta, AIR OnLine 2018 J & K 546;  2018 Kash LJ 918, continued as under:

• “27. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Constitution of the India is the supreme law of the land and the provisions in the criminal statutes must be read and interpreted not in isolation but in the light of the constitutional provisions as interpreted by the Supreme Court. If upon an investigation, it appears to the officer-in-charge of the police station or to the police officer making the investigation that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him and the Final Report can be filed before the Magistrate. It is true that the Final Report is not binding on the Magistrate and if the Magistrate differs from the opinion of the I.O., he can take the cognizance or order for the further investigation, but that action of the Magistrate is a judicial action and at that stage while taking decision on the Final Report the Magistrate has to act judicially as a Court. The Magistrate is required to weigh the prima facie evidence and take a judicial decision.”

Complaint can be dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

The complaint filed by a private party can be dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C., if he thinks that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding.

Further investigation by Police and Magistrate’ Order under 156(3)

Under Section 202 the Magistrate has power to order ‘further investigation’.

Under 173(8) of the CrPC, a police officer can carry on ‘further investigation’.

But our Apex Court held in Pramod Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 120, (Rajesh Bindal, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.) while considering whether the police/investigating agency can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC (also refer to Section 193(9) of BNSS) without obtaining the leave of the Magistrate/ Court concerned, referring Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 and  Peethambaran Versus State Of Kerala & Anr., reported in the (2024) 16 SCC 65, it was held – No.

The Apex Court, in Pramod Kumar v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2026 INSC 120, referred Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537, (as quoted in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762), which reads as under:

• “In this very judgment, this Court, while noting that although there is no explicit mandate under Section 173(8) CrPC to seek the leave of the Court before conducting further investigation, nevertheless, over time, a practice has been developed to seek permission of the Court. Therefore, the practice of seeking the leave of the Court will have to be read into the provisions of Section 173(8), and it is essentially a prerequisite for directing further investigation.” 

Police should seek formal permission from the Court as held in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762, for further investigation.

No conflict with the power of the police to investigate further in light of Section 173(8) of the CrPC, and the Magistrate’s power to order further investigation under Section 202 of the CrPC and therefore the Magistrate can order reopening of the investigation, under Section 173(8).

Magistrate has three options – on receipt of a final (refer) report under Section 173:  

• to accept the report and close the case,
• disagree with the report and proceed with the case (under Section 202 CrPC),
• order further investigation (under Section 202).

Order Further investigation – possible, under S. 173(8)

In Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah, (1997) 7 SCC 614, it was held as under:

• “The Magistrate could, thus in exercise of the powers under Section 173(8) CrPC direct the CBI to “further investigate” the case and collect further evidence keeping in view the objections raised by the appellant to the investigation and the “new” report to be submitted by the investigating officer would be governed by sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section 173 CrPC.”. (quoted in: Central Bureau Of India v. Hemendhra Reddy  (Surya Kant, J.B. Pardiwala, jj.)

It appears that this power to order ‘further investigation’ is under Sec. 202, and not under Sections 173(8) or 156, for the following reasons.

• The CrPC does not give a power to the Magistrate to “monitor” the investigation. (If it was really intended, or the scheme was, to convey a ‘wide power’ including monitoring, it would have been stated in the Code itself.)
• The power of Magistrate to order ‘further investigation’ is only in Sec. 202 CrPC.
  • Note: Sec. 156(3) deals with the power of Magistrate to direct investigation of cognizable offences by police.
  • Sec. 173(8) does not authorise the Magistrate to make an order for further investigation. (It authorises the the police officer alone.)
• The power for ‘Ordering Proper Investigation’ (by police) may be a matter for the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The ‘grievance’ on investigation cannot be slipped-down to a magistrate, as laid down in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2016- 6 SCC 277) as an ‘alternate remedy’.
• The Magistrate derives powers to deal with (or take cognizance of) the facts which constitute an offence, under Clauses (a) to (c) of Sec. 190(1) of the CrPC. It is on the following –
  • (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence;
  • (b) upon a police report of such facts;
  • (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.
• Once a Final Report is filed, the Magistrate has to apply his mind – to decide whether to proceed with it (that is, to issue summons/warrant under Sec. 204) or not. At this stage, if the Magistrate finds it proper to take further evidence or conduct further investigation, he has to invoke Sec. 202 (and, he cannot go back to Sec. 156).
  It is for the following –
  (i) after getting the police report, the magistrate has to take cognizance of offences, under Sec. 190, if he decides to proceed.
  (ii) after taking cognizance on a police report, if the Magistrate finds it proper to take further evidence or conduct further investigation (to decide whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against accused), only enabling provision in the CrPC is Sec. 202.
  (iii) after taking cognizance, the Magistrate cannot go back to the pre-cognisance stage, Sec. 156(3).
  (iv) Sec. 202 expressly provides for taking further evidence or conducting further investigation by the Magistrate, after taking cognizance on a police report also.
  _{[ Note: It is not confined to “Complaint”. The term used is not mere “complaint”. It can also be a ‘complaint of an offence’ in a Charge also. It is clear from the words in Sec. 202 – “on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance the Magistrate can ‘either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer'” ]}
• Under Sec. 202, the Magistrate is required to act upon “receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Sec. 192“; and he can exercise following powers –
  • “enquire into the case himself or
  • ordering further investigation, through police or any other person”
• Note: Sec. 192 is in Chapter XIV, Conditions Requisite for Initiation of Proceedings; and Sec. 202 is in Chapter XV, Complaints to Magistrates. But, Sec. 202 deals with a matter “made over to him under Sec. 192“. It can include a Police Report.
  • Therefore, it is clear that the “Receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance” [in Sec. 202] is used in wider sense. It includes Police Report (See: Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (1976) 3 SCC 252).
  • Sec. 192 says: “Any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, makeover the case for enquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate …” (It is not ‘Complaint’ alone.)
• In other words, ‘complaint of an offence’, “made over to him under section 192“, stated in Sec. 202, being refers to a Police Report (made over) also, it is clear – “complaint of an offence” [in Sec. 202] is used in a wider sense (and it is noteworthy – the term used is not mere “complaint”).
• Therefore, Magistrate can ‘enquire into the case himself’ or ‘order further investigation’, under Sec. 202, upon a police report (on which cognizance is taken). It can be on both Refer Report or Charge under Sec. 173.
• Once a Final Report is filed, the Magistrate has to apply his mind, under Sec. 204 – to decide to proceed with it or not. If the Magistrate finds it proper to take further evidence or conduct further investigation, only provision for the same is Sec. 202; he cannot go back to 156(3) – pre cognisance stage as held in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (1976) 3 SCC 252.
• There is no specific provision that allows the Magistrate to give specific directions as to investigation (to police) in ‘further investigation‘ also.
• In short, the Code does not allow or direct the Magistrate to “give directions” or to “monitor” the investigation (while it is done by the police).

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

• Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No Bar
• Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of Pleadings
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• 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
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• 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
• 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?
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
• Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian Law
• Thangam v.  Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?

Principles and Procedure

• BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
• Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial Proceedings
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• 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
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
• 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
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Title and Ownership in Indian Law
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• 22nd Law Commission  Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• 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
• Termination of Tenancy (& Grant) by Forfeiture (for Claiming Title)

Adverse Possession

• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• 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
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs

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
• Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Grant in Law

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.

Evidence Act – General

• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
• 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?

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
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Prem Raj v.  Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal Court’

Law on Documents

• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• 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
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.

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
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than) Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be pleaded?
• One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive Easement

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

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

• Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
• Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable Defence
• “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
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?

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?

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’?
• A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose Benefit

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 v. 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
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Juristic Personality
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
  • Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920: Provisions as regards opinion, advice or direction of the Court.
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
  • Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions

Jojy George Koduvath

Procedure – a Handmaid;  Just Relief Cannot be Refused because of Mistake

In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, (1969) 1 SCC 869 our Apex Court held, while dealing with amendment of pleadings, as under:

• “5. …. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure. (Quoted in Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary, AIR 2019 SC 1186)

Procedural defects should not be allowed to defeat Substantive Rights

In Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75, our Apex  Court held that procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice by any oppressive or punitive use. The Court held as under:-

• “17. Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice.
• Procedure, a handmaiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well-recognised exceptions to this principle are:
• .(i) where the statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of non- compliance;
• (ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified, even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it;
• (iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous;
• (iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court;
• (v) in case of memorandum of appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant.” (Quoted in Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary, AIR 2019 SC 1186).

Adjudication is to Render Justice; it is Unmindful of Consequences

It was held by the Kerala High Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Joint Registrar of Co operative Societies (General), 08 Dec 2015, (Dama Seshadri Naidu, J) as under:

• “23. I am very conscious that this Court, as a constitutional adjudicatory machinery, is called upon to interpret the statute straight and simple and render justice. Justice is not an inventive judicial instrument; it is rather a necessary corollary to the judicious application of the law to the facts following certain accepted cannons of construction of the statutes and the Constitution, too. The whole process is compendiously called judicial adjudication. Trite is the truth that adjudication is unmindful of consequences; it is, on the other hand, in the legislative wisdom to consider all the eventualities and bring about legislation or legislative changes to see that the varied needs of the organisations and institutions, including the administrative agencies, are best served—adverse fallout on the application of law is avoided.

Suit in the name of ‘Wrong’ Plaintiff, out of Inadvertent Mistake

In Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary, AIR 2019 SC 1186, the plaint was not properly drafted in as much as in the memo of parties, the Plaintiff is described as ‘Varun Pahwa through Director of Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd.’; it should have been ‘Siddharth Garments Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Varun Pahwa’. It was an inadvertent mistake of the counsel.  Supreme Court [after referring State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Limited Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, (1969) 1 SCC 869 and Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75], permitted the Company to correct the mistake.

Amendments allowed, if no injustice to the other side

In State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Limited, (2010) 4 SCC 518, Supreme Court held as under:-

• “17. Insofar as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) is concerned, Order 6 Rule 17 provides for amendment of pleadings. It says that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
• 18. The matters relating to amendment of pleadings have come up for consideration before the courts from time to time. As far back as in 1884 in Clarapede & Co. v. Commercial Union Assn. (1883) 32 WR 262 (CA)  – an appeal that came up before the Court of Appeal, Brett M.R. stated:
• “… The rule of conduct of the court in such a case is that, however negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs; but, if the amendment will put them into such a position that they must be injured, it ought not to be made….”

Mistakes Carried into Decrees

In Aliyar v. Raju V. Vayalat, 2016-1 KHC 763; 2016-1 KLJ 799; 2016-2 KLT 656, it is observed as under:

• “It is needless to restate that the courts exercising power under the Act (Specific Relief Act, 1963) have both legal and equitable jurisdictions. It is common knowledge that in our country we do not have Courts of Equity and Law Courts separately. The Act confers equitable jurisdiction on the Civil Courts for granting specific relief.” (Quoted in: George, v.  Annakutty, ILR 2017-4 Ker 839; 2017-4 KHC 742; 2017-4 KerLT 553)

“Accidental slips or omissions may arise in the following circumstances –

• .(1) In cases of suits based upon mortgage, sale, exchange, lease or agreement to purchase, survey numbers may be given correctly in the document anterior to the suit but a wrong survey number may be incorporated in the schedules by mistakes. Which mistakes may be carried into the decree schedules as well.
• (2) In the above cases, even in the original document on the basis of which the suit is filed, there may be a mistake in regard to the survey numbers, though the extent and boundaries of the land belonging to the parties may be correctly described, and the same wrong survey number may be carried into the plaint schedules and as a consequences into the decree schedulesas well.
• (3) In suits for partition and the like where there is no document anterior to the suit the mistake may occur in the plaint schedules by giving a wrong survey number or wrong extents though the properties have been correctly described by boundaries etc.”

Amendment of plaint and decree allowed under Sec. 151 and 152 CPC

In Niyamat Ali Molla v. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. (SB Sinha, J.),  AIR 2008 SC  225; 2007-13 SCC 421, it is held that a decree may be corrected by the Court both in exercise of its power under Section 152 as also under Section 151. It was a case where application for amendment of the plaint as also of the decree containing the Schedule describing the said property was filed. The Apex Court observed further as under:

• “The courts power to amend a decree is not only confined to a clerical or arithmetical error but also the pleadings of the parties, if a mistake had occurred in the pleadings and the same is continued.”

The Apex Court upheld the Order allowing the amendment holding as under:

• “26.It is not a case where the defendants could be said to have been misled. It is now well settled that the pleadings of the parties are to be read in their entirety. They are to be construed liberally and not in a pedantic manner. It is also not a case where by reason of an amendment, one property is being substituted by the other. If the Court has the requisite power to make an amendment of the decree, the same would not mean that it had gone beyond the decree or passing any decree. The statements contained in the body of the plaint have sufficiently described the suit lands. Only because some blanks in the schedule of the property have been left, the same, by itself, may not be a ground to deprive the respondents from the fruit of the decree. If the appellant herein did not file any written statement, he did so at its own peril. Admittedly, he examined himself as a witness in the case. He, therefore, was aware of the issues raised in the suit. It is stated that an Advocate-Commissioner has also been appointed. We, therefore, are of the opinion that only because the JL numbers in the schedule was missing, the same by itself would not be a ground to interfere with the impugned order.
• 27.So far as the application for impleadment of the applicants are concerned, they being not parties to the suit are not bound by the decree. They would, thus, be entitled to take recourse to such remedies which are available to them in law including filing of an application under Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if any occasion arises therefor. As and when the said applicants take recourse to law, the same has to be determined in accordance with law.
• 28.This appeal and the application for impleadment are dismissed accordingly. It would, however, for the Executing Court to consider at the time of execution of the decree to ascertain whether there exists any difficulty in executing the decree or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.”

This decision is referred to in Peethani Suryanarayana v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore, 2009-11 SCC 308..

No limit to the Court to Correct Errors u/Sec. 152 CPC; Mistake in Suit Document – Corrections allowed in a Preliminary Decree.

In Yerramilli Satyanarayana Rao v. Kandukuri Purnayya, AIR 1931 Mad 260, it is held by Krishnan Pandalai J. (in a case in which a wrong description of mortgaged property was given in the bond and the same mistake was repeated in the plaint and in the preliminary decree) as under:

• “The net result of the authorities appears to me to be that there is nothing which limits the power of the Court under Section 152 to correcting errors, mistakes and omissions, which arose in the suit and there is nothing which prevents the Court from doing justice in an appropriate case where such mistakes arose by reason of copying an erroneous document into the plaint. In my opinion, a suit for rectification although it may have been possible is not the only remedy. As for the suggestion of the Judge that a petition for review is appropriate, I fail to see that that is an obstacle to the present application. The order of the Judge dismissing the petition must be set aside and the petition will be remitted to the Lower Court for being dealt with on the merits. (referred to by the AP High Court in Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah v. Kalkonda Krishnaiah, AIR1974 AP201)

In Yerramilli Satyanarayana Rao v. Kandukuri Purnayya, AIR 1931 Mad 260, several earlier decisions were relied on. They were analysed by the AP High Court in Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah v. Kalkonda Krishnaiah, AIR1974 AP201 (Viswanatha Sastri, J.), to observe as under:

• “The learned Judge considered in that case the decision in Narayanaswami v. Natesa, (1893) ILR 16, Mad 424 which was a case of wrong description of the hypothecated property in the plaint, whereas the mortgage consisted of the correct survey number and an application was made to bring the plaint schedule in conformity with that contained in the bond. It was held by the Full Bench consisting of Parker. Best and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ. that the alteration ordered was necessary to rectify a palpable error without which correction the decree was unexecutable. The error in the plaint was so palpable that to obstacle in the way of plaintiff executing his decree.  
• The learned Judge in that decision referred to another decision of a Bench in Somasundaram Chettiar v. Vasuswami Naicker , 1914 Mad WN 107 = (AIR 1914 Mad 297 (1)) wherein there were errors in the description of the boundaries which makes the whole description palpably erroneous and if allowed to stand, would have made the decree absolutely useless and unexectuable. The latter Bench followed the earlier decision in (1893) ILR 16 Mad 424 and held that it was immaterial whether the errors were introduced into the plaint for the first time or in documents anterior to the plaint provided they are clerical errors and it was a case for amendment. Another Bench decision of their Lordships Sadasiva Ayyar and Spencer JJ. in Mahaboob Behum Sahiba v. Lal Begum Saheba, (1921) 14 Mad LW 445 which, followed the above decisions in ILR 16 Mad 424 and 1914 Mad WN 107 = (AIR 1914 Mad 297 (1)) was also followed in 61 Mad LJ 805 = (AIR 1931 Mad 260 ). The case in (1921) 14 Mad LW 445 was in respect of an amendment of survey numbers filed even after a final decree was passed.”

The AP High Court, further observed in in Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah v. Kalkonda Krishnaiah, AIR1974 AP201, as under:

• “(15) The decision of Krishnan Pandalai J. was followed by Patanjali Sastry, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Mad LJ 452 (AIR 1941 Mad 940 (1) ). The learned Judge observed that the Madras High Court has applied section 152 also to cases where the mistake occurred earlier in the document evidencing the transaction itself and was copied in the plaint and decree in the suit brought to enforce the transaction. The decision in Satyanarayana Rao v. Purnayya, (1931) 61 MLJ 805. was followed and the decision to the contra in Shujaatmand Khan v. Govind Behari. Both these decisions were followed in Vimalamba v. Ratnamma, (1965) 1 Andh WR 266 (AIR 1966 Andh Pra 26) by Venkatesam J, who also followed the Madras view in preference to that of Allahabad. The same view has adopted in Subramonia v. Joseph George, AIR 1959 Ker 336 by Kerala High Court and in Ghulam Ahmad v. Khizar Joo, AIR 1960 J and K 37 by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
• (16) The view taken in Ramakrishnan v. Radhakrishnan (AIR 1948 Madras 13) by a Bench of Madras High Court consisting Gentle C. J. and Hapell J, no doubt struck a different footing. In that case there was a mortgage in 1922. In respect of three items of property, including an item, which was survey No. 1427. In 1928 a preliminary decree was passed , which was mortgagor had no title to survey No. 1467. In 1930 he filed E. A. 494 of 1930 for attachment of property in S. No. 464 to which it was common ground the mortgagor had a title. The attachment was ordered and affected. but nothing was done for three grounds years. In 1933 the mortgagee-decree-holder, assigned the decree to the respondent in the said appeal. Eight years later the assignee-decree-holder brought the properties in survey No. 1467 to sale in execution of the final mortgage decrees and at the sale he became the purchaser. The sale was confirmed and full satisfaction of the decree was entered up. When the assignee-decree-holder purchaser went to take possession, he was obstructed by one of the sons of appellant No. 1. An application to remove the obstruction was filed and was ordered by the trial court in 1943. In appeal to the High Court the appeal was allowed. Shortly after the appeal was allowed dismissing the application of the assignee-decree-holder for removal of obstruction. The assignee-decree-holder filed an application in the lower court to have the mortgage deed, plaint in the mortgage suit and the preliminary and final decrees altered by substituting properties in 1463 and 1466 in place of property number 1467. The provisions of law invoked for that application were Section 151 and 152 C. P. C. The Trial Court allowed the application and altered the instrument by substituting two survey numbers 1463 hypothecate of the mortgage. On those facts the learned Judges held that the remedy of the petitioner was only to file a suit under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act for rectification of the deed and not to file an application under Section 152 of the C. P. C. The learned Judges observed as follows:
• “I am unable to see how Section 152 gives to a court jurisdiction and authority to modify documents, particularly documents upon which a suit is instituted. There is a remedy by way of suit and I find nothing in the provisions of Section 152 which confers upon it similar powers as are conferred by Section 31, Specific Relief Act. In my view Section 152 is for the purpose of correcting errors directly involved in the proceedings themselves and not for correcting errors which are anterior to the proceedings, particularly in documents upon which proceedings are brought. I am unable to see that property, wrongly described in a deed, can be included in any of the mistakes which the section allows to be corrected. It is not a clerical or an arithmetical error. and I cannot see that it is an accidental slip or an omission.”The learned Judges preferred to follow the view of Allahabad High Court in preference to the view of Madras High Court cited before it was enunciated in the two decisions of Madras High Court in (1931) 61 Mad LJ 805 (AIR 1931 Mad 260) and (1941) 2 Mad LJ 452 (AIR 1941 Mad 940 (1)) and the Rangoon High Courts view as enunciated in AIR 1924 Rang 104. ”
• Their Lordships also negativated that there was power to amend as prayed for under Section 151 C. P. C. It is therefore clear that the application, out of which the said appeal arose, was for amending the mortgage deed itself and as a consequence the schedules in the plaint and the decrees. Their Lordships clearly laid down that Section 152 is intended only to correct errors involved in the proceedings themselves in the suit and not for correcting errors which are anterior to the proceedings and particularly in the document upon which the proceedings are brought.

The AP High Court, in Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah v. Kalkonda Krishnaiah, AIR1974 AP201, referring the following decisions and observed as under:

• “(17) At this stage attention may be invited to another Bench decision in Latchavya v. Seethamma. (1932) 62 Mad LJ 350 (AIR 1932 Mad 275) rendered by their Lordships Pillay and Anantakrishna Aiyar JJ. That was a case in which there was a mistake in the mentioning of survey number in the mortgage deed itself. It was mentioned therein as survey No. 166 instead of survey number 168 and that mistake had been repeated in the plaint and decrees. On the basis of the said mortgage the suit O. S. 302 of 1919 was filed. A preliminary decree was passed against which there was no appeal. At that stage, the mortgagee decree-holder discovered that there was a mistake in the survey number. The mortgagee thereupon filed a suit under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act for rectification of the mistake in the suit O. S. 302 of 1919. The said suit was decreed as the mention of survey number 166 was done by mistake of the parties. The court also directed the amendment of the mortgage-preliminary decree. The decision was confirmed in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge. But the suit was dismissed by waller J in appeal L.P.A. was preferred against that decision. Their Lordships considered relevant case law and ultimately held that where a mortgage deed has been rectified in respect of a mutual mistake in spite of a decree having been passed on the basis of the mortgage, though the plaintiff has adopted a wrong course in applying in the same suit for rectification of the prior decree, the order of the court should be allowed to stand as it amounted to an amendment which the plaintiffs might have got by first getting the mortgagee deed rectified and then amending the plaint by applying for review or on an application under S. 152 CPC but it was out of a suit for rectification of the mistake in the bond as well as the decree. It was therefore a converse case and their Lordships held that such a rectification of the decree cannot be interfered with, as it was a mutual mistake.”
• (18) It may be relevant at this stage, to note the decision of Supreme Court in Sheodhyan Singh v. Mst. Santichara Kuer (1961) 2 Mad LJ (SC) 116 (AIR 1963 SC 1879 ). That was a case in which a suit was brought in respect of 10 plots of land, for declaration and possession. They were originally mortgaged to the defendants, on the basis of which a morgage suit was filed in 1932. The mortgaged property was sold in court auction and was purchased by the decree holders 1936. They took possession of the property through court and remained in possession till 1943. After the sale to the respondents, there were trouble created by the appellants, who ultimately took possession by force. The respondents thereupon filed the suit out of which the appeal arose. The appellants resisted the suit on a number of grounds. One of grounds related to plot No. 1060. the appellants contended that it was neither included in the final decree for sale in favour of the respondents predecessors in interest nor in the sale certificate. The final decree contained 10 plots. It gives the Tauzi number, the Khasra number the Thana number, the survey number and the area and the boundaries of each plot. Among the 10 plots mentioned in the final decree there was a plot No. 160 but not plot bearing No. 1060. In the sale certificate also the same plots were mentioned. The High Court held that plot 100 in the final decree and in the sale certificate was a mistake for 1060. In the sale certificate also the same plots were mentioned. The High Court held that plot 100 in the final decree and in the sale certificate was a mistake for 1060, and it was a case of misdescription and not a case of disputed identity. The plot which was taken possession of also was the plot in 1060 as per the description and the boundaries. It was also found that there was no plot bearing No. 160 in the Khata number as the identify of the lot was correctly given and it was only a misdescription of the plot in the final decree as well as in the sale certificate. The decree for possession was held to be good. Their Lordships also confirmed this decision and held that where there is no doubt as to the identity and there is only a misdescription that can be treated as a mere irregularity. This case no doubt related a suit wherein the possession of the correct plot was sought to be recovered. But there is no reason why the same principle laid down by their Lordships viz. , that where there is only a misdescription of the plot and there is no dispute about the identity and the suit could be decreed for the correct plot not covered by the decree and sale certificate, should not be applied even in cases arising, should not be applied even in case arising under Section 152 C. P. C. or clerical or mutual mistakes.
• (19) I am also of the view that in view of the above principles laid down by their Lordships in the above Supreme Court case, the reasoning of the Bench in Ramakrishnan v. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1948 Mad 13 may have to be re-considered in a proper case. I need not pursue the matter further in this case as this case is not based upon a document anterior to the suit.
• (20) I may now refer to a recent decision by a Bench of this Court in Peraju v. Venkamma, AIR 1971 in Andh Pra 74. Their Lordships preferred to follow the view of Madras High Court in (1931) 61 MLJ 805 (AIR 1931 Mad 260) and a decision of Rajamannar C. J. in Katamraju v. Paripurnandam. (1948) 2 Mad LJ 301 (AIR 1949 Mad 282) and that of Krishnaswami Nayudu in Apart Krishna Poduval v. Lakshmi Nethiar, (1950) 1 Mad LJ 120 (AIR 1950 Mad 751 ). In both the above cases, it was held that where an application is filed for correction of errors as regards survey numbers, in the plaint schedule and decree schedules, and there is no dispute as regards identity of the property amendments may be allowed under Section 152 C. P. C. The fact that the deed anterior to the plaint also contained the similar mistake cannot disentitle the appellant to have the error set right. The above Bench have distinguished the decision in AIR 1948 Mad 13 on facts stating that it related to the rectification of the document itself.
• (21) It may also be mentioned here that a suit still continues even after the preliminary decree and it is only after passing of final decree the suit can be said to have terminated. It is certainly, therefore open to courts to amend a plaint and decree schedules at any stage before passing of final decree. (Vide somireddi Burrayya v. Somireddy Atchayyamma (1958) 2 Andh WR 208 (AIR 1959 Andh Pra 26) ; Basavayya v. Guruvayya, AIR 1951 Mad 938 (FB) and Venkata Reddy v. P. Reddy AIR 1963 SC 992.”

Corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omission or mistakes

In Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P., (1999) 3 SCC 500, it is held as under:

• “The correction contemplated are of correcting only accidental omission or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the Court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, how erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the province of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC even after passing of effective order in the lis pending before them. No Court can under the cover of the aforesaid sections modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. In the instant case, the trial court had specifically held the respondents-State liable to pay future interest only despite the prayer of the appellant for grant of interest with effect from the date of alleged breach which impliedly meant that the court had rejected the claim of the appellant in so far as pendente lite interest was concerned.”

No party should suffer due to Mistake of the Court

In Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho, 2001-4 SCC 181, it is laid down as under:

• “So far legal position is concerned, there would hardly be any doubt about the proposition that in terms of Section 152 C.P.C., any error occurred in the decree on account of arithmetical or clerical error or accidental slip may be rectified by the court. The principle behind the provision is that no party should suffer due to mistake of the court and whatever is intended by the court while passing the order or decree must be properly reflected therein, otherwise it would only be destructive to the principle of advancing the cause of justice. A reference to the following cases on the point may be made: The basis of the provision under Section 152 C.P.C. is found on the maxim Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit i.e. an act of Court shall prejudice no man (Jenk Cent-118) as observed in a case reported in AIR 1981 Guwahati 41, The Assam Tea Corporation Ltd. versus Narayan Singh and another. Hence, an unintentional mistake of the Court which may prejudice cause of any party must be rectified. In another case reported in AIR 1962 S.C. 633 I.L. Janakirama Iyer and others etc. etc. versus P.M. Nilakanta Iyer it was found that by mistake word net profit was written in the decree in place of mesne profit. This mistake was found to be clear by looking to the earlier part of the judgment. The mistake was held to be inadvertent. In Bhikhi Lal and others versus Tribeni and others AIR 1965 S.C. 1935 it was held that a decree which was in conformity with the judgment was not liable to be corrected. In another case reported in AIR 1966 S.C. 1047 Master Construction Co. (p) Ltd. versus State of Orissa and another it has been observed that arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake on the part of the Court liable to be corrected. To illustrate the point, it has been indicated as an example that in a case where the order may contain something which is not mentioned in the decree would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake. Such omissions are attributable to the Court who may say something or omit to say something which it did not intend to say or omit. No new arguments or re-arguments on merits are required for such rectification of mistake. In a case reported in (1999) 3 S.C.C. 500 Dwarakadas Versus State of M.P. and Another this Court has held that the correction in the order or decree should be of the mistake or omission which is accidental and not intentional without going into the merits of the case. It is further observed that the provisions cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original decree so as to in effect pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case. The trial court had not granted the interest pendente lite though such a prayer was made in the plaint but on an application moved under Section 152 C.P.C. the interest pendente lite was awarded by correcting the judgment and the decree on the ground that non-awarding of the interest pendente lite was an accidental omission. It was held that the High Court was right in setting aside the order. Liberal use of the provisions under Section 152 C.P.C. by the Courts beyond its scope has been deprecated. While taking the above view this Court had approved the judgment of the Madras High Court in Thirugnanavalli Ammal versus P. Venugopala Pillai AIR 1940 Madras 29 and relied on Maharaj Puttu Lal versus Sripal Singh reported in AIR 1937 Oudh 191: ILR 12 Lucknow 759. Similar view is found to have been taken by this Court in a case reported in (1996) 11 S.C.C. 528 State of Bihar and another versus Nilmani Sahu and another where the Court in the guise of arithmetical mistake on re-consideration of the matter came to a fresh conclusion as to the number of trees and the valuations thereof in the matter which had already been finally decided. Similarly in the case of Bai Shakriben (dead) By Natwar Melsingh and others versus Special Land Acquisition Officer and another reported in (1996) 4 S.C.C. 533 this Court found omission of award of additional amount under Section 23 (1-A), enhanced interest under Section 28 and solatium etc. could not be treated as clerical or arithmetical error in the order. The application for amendment of the decree in awarding of the amount as indicated above was held to be bad in law.

Clerical Error or Slip can be Corrected by all Courts and Authorities

Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho, 2001-4 SCC 181, continued as under:

• As a matter of fact such inherent powers would generally be available to all courts and authorities irrespective of the fact whether the provisions contained under Section 152 C.P.C. may or may not strictly apply to any particular proceeding. In a matter where it is clear that something which the Court intended to do but the same was accidentally slipped or any mistake creeps in due to clerical or arithmetical mistake it would only advance the ends of justice to enable the Court to rectify such mistake. But before exercise of such power the Court must be legally satisfied and arrive at a valid finding that the order or the decree contains or omits some thing which was intended to be otherwise that is to say while passing the decree the court must have in its mind that the order or the decree should be passed in a particular manner but that intention is not translated into the decree or order due to clerical, arithmetical error or accidental slip. The facts and circumstances may provide clue to the fact as to what was intended by the court but unintentionally the same does not find mention in the order or the judgment or something which was not intended to be there stands added to it. The power of rectification of clerical, arithmetical errors or accidental slip does not empower the court to have a second thought over the matter and to find that a better order or decree could or should be passed.. There should not be re-consideration of merits of the matter to come to a conclusion that it would have been better and in the fitness of things to have passed an order as sought to be passed on rectification. On a second thought court may find that it may have committed a mistake in passing an order in certain terms but every such mistake does not permit its rectification in exercise of Courts inherent powers as contained under Section 152 C.P.C. It is to be confined to something initially intended but left out or added against such intention. So far the legal proposition relied upon by the learned Single Judge and the Honble Division Bench deciding the matter in its LPA jurisdiction, we are totally in agreement with the same i.e. an unintentional mistake which occurred due to accidental slip has to be rectified. The question however which requires consideration is as to whether on the facts of the present case and the principles indicated above, it could be said that there was any clerical or arithmetical error or accidental slip on the part of the Court or not.”

Jayalakshmi Coelho v. Oswald Joseph Coelho, 2001-4 SCC 181, followed, in Neeraj Kumar Sainy v. State of U. P., AIR 2017 SC 1524; 2017-14 SCC 136, U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Imtiaz Hussain, 2006-1 SCC 380, State Of Punjab v. Darshan Singh, 2004-1 SCC 328

Mistake of a party cannot be Corrected taking the Benefit of Sec. 152

In Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel, AIR 2012 SC 3285, it is held as under:

• “21. A person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum, what to talk of a Writ Court, as explained by the legal maxim ‘allegans suam turpitudinem non est audiendus’. If a party has committed a wrong, he cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his own wrong…. This concept is also explained by the legal maxims ‘Commodum ex injuria sua non habere debet’; and ‘nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria’.”

Referring Bhartiya Seva Samaj Trust v. Yogeshbhai Ambalal Patel, it is observed in ONGC Ltd.  v.  Modern Construction, 2014-1 SCC 648, as under:

• 17. Thus, the respondent cannot take the benefit of its own mistake. Respondent instituted the suit in Civil Court at Mehsana which admittedly had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In spite of the fact that the civil suit stood decreed, the High Court directed the court at Mehsana to return the plaint in view of the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 CPC. Thus, the respondent presented the plaint before the Civil Court at Surat on 3.2.1999.
• 18. The judgment and decree dated 21.9.2006 clearly provided for future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation of the amount. The Executing Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.9.2007 rejected the claim of the respondent observing that the respondent had wrongly filed suit at Mehsana and the said court had no jurisdiction, and the “wrong doer cannot get benefit of its own wrong” i.e. the benefit of interest on the amount from the date of filing the suit in Mehsana court. The Appellate Court in its order dated 12.3.2010 reiterated a similar view rejecting the appeal of the respondent observing that “a public undertaking cannot be penalised for the mistake committed by the plaintiff by choosing a wrong forum”. Before the High Court when the matter was taken up on 14.9.2010, a similar view had been reiterated that the respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage of the words “from the date of the suit”, and conveniently overlook its own wrong of initially filing the suit in 1986 in the court at Mehsana. Though the court did not have jurisdiction, the plaintiff/respondent is now claiming interest for the period from 1986 to 1999 i.e. for 13 years by taking advantage of its own wrong and for that purpose, the plaintiff/respondent is trying to misconstrue the words mentioned by the learned trial court in the operative portion of the judgment dated 21.9.2006, viz., from the date of filing of the suit. However, while passing the impugned order, the High Court has used the language that the case stood transferred from the Mehsana court to the court at Surat and, therefore, interest has to be paid from the date of initiation of the suit at Mehsana i.e. from 1986 and in view thereof, allowed the claim.
• 19. We are of the considered view that once the plaint was presented before the Civil Court at Surat, it was a fresh suit and cannot be considered to be continuation of the suit instituted at Mehsana. The plaintiff/respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own mistake instituting the suit before a wrong court. The judgment and order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.”

When instrument may be rectified

Section 26 of Sp. Relief Act reads as follows:

Suit for Rectification of Deed – When Needed?

In Aliyar v. Raju V. Vayalat, 2016-1 KHC 763; 2016-2 KLT 656, it is found as under:

• “Admittedly, in Ext. A1 there are mistakes in the extent, survey number, boundaries and the details of the anterior title deeds. In these situations, it is clear that institution of a suit merely for the injunction reliefs will not serve the purpose of the respondent/plaintiff. Likewise, a suit for declaration that the plaint schedule property is the property that is included in Ext. A1 will also not help the respondent to get an effective and executable decree. It is, therefore, very clear that the patent mistakes in Ext. A1 will have to be rectified, otherwise the actual features available on the ground will be totally different from the descriptions shown in the respondent’s title deed. That apart, a declaratory relief can only be claimed in respect of a specific immovable property capable of being identified correctly. Indisputably, the descriptions in the schedule to Ext.A1 and the recital in the document do not reflect the actual state of affairs. Therefore, the declaratory relief can be effectively granted only after rectifying the mistakes in Ext. A1. Viewing from this angle, we are of the view that the most important and primary relief claimable under such a situation is the rectification of Ext. A1.”

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

• Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No Bar
• Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of Pleadings
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• 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
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• 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
• 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?
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
• Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian Law
• Thangam v.  Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?

Principles and Procedure

• BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
• Substantive Rights and Mistakes & Procedural Defects in Judicial Proceedings
• Will Boundaries of Properties (Always) Preferred Over Survey Number, Extent, Side Measurements, etc.?
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• 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
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
• 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
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Title and Ownership in Indian Law
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• 22nd Law Commission  Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• 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
• Termination of Tenancy (& Grant) by Forfeiture (for Claiming Title)

Adverse Possession

• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• 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
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs

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
• Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Grant in Law

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.

Evidence Act – General

• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
• 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?

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
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Prem Raj v.  Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal Court’

Law on Documents

• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• 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
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.

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
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than) Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be pleaded?
• One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive Easement

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

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

• Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
• Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable Defence
• “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
• What is COGNIZANCE and Application of Mind by a Magistrate?

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?

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’?
• A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose Benefit

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 v. 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
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Juristic Personality
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
  • Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920: Provisions as regards opinion, advice or direction of the Court.
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
  • Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions

Taken from – “Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions“

Jojy George Koduvath, Saji Koduvath Associates

All Illegal Agreements are Void, But the Reverse is Not True

J.B. Pardiwala, J., in Hasvantbhai Chhanubhai Dalal v. Adesinh Mansinh Raval, 2019-2 GujLH 357, observed as under:

• “DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “VOID” AND “ILLEGAL” AGREEMENT:
• 58. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 has made it clear that there is a thin line of difference between void and illegal agreement.
  • A void agreement is one which may not be prohibited under law, while –
    • an illegal agreement is strictly prohibited by law and the parties to the agreement can be penalized for entering into such an agreement.
  • A void agreement has no legal consequences, because it is null from the very beginning.
  • Conversely, the illegal agreement is devoid of any legal effect, since it is started.
  • All illegal agreements are void, but the reverse is not true.
  • If an agreement is illegal, other agreements related to it are said to be void.
  • An agreement that violates any law or whose nature is criminal or is opposed to any public policy or immoral is an illegal agreement.
• These agreements are void ab initio, and so the agreements collateral to the original agreement are also void. Here the collateral agreement refers to the transaction associated or incidental to the main agreement. The difference between void and illegal agreement can be drawn clearly on the following grounds:
• [1] An agreement which loses its legal status is a void agreement. An illegal agreement is one which is not permissible under law.
• [2] Certain void agreements are void ab initio while some agreements become void when it loses its legal binding. On the other hand, an Illegal agreement is void since the very beginning. A void agreement is not prohibited by Indian Penal Code (IPC), but IPC strictly prohibits an illegal agreement.
• [3] The scope of a void contract is comparatively wider than an illegal contract as all agreements which are void may not necessarily be illegal, but all illegal agreements are void from its inception.
• [4] A void agreement is not punishable under law whereas an illegal agreement is considered as an offence, hence the parties to it are punishable and penalised under Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• [5] Collateral agreements of a void agreement may or may not be void i.e. they may be valid also. Conversely, collateral agreements of an illegal agreement cannot be enforceable by law as they are void ab initio.
• It is quite clear that the void and illegal agreement are very different. One of the factors that make an agreement void is the illegality of the contract, such as contract whose object or consideration is unlawful. Moreover, in both the two agreements loses its enforceability by law.”

Also Read:

• Cancellation, Avoidance or Declaration of a Void or Voidable Deed
• If a Document is Per Se Illegal, or Void Ab Initio, it Need Not be Set Aside
• Can the True Owner Seek Cancellation of a Deed, Executed by a Stranger to the Property
• Cancellation of Sale Deeds and Settlement Deeds & Powers of Sub-Registrar in Cancelling Deeds

What is Illegal and What is Void

In Kantilal Manilal Parekh v. Ranchhoddas K.  Bhatt, AIR 1953 Bom 98, it is said as under:

• “Now, it must be observed that the words “illegal” and “void” are often loosely used as synonymous terms even by lawyers, jurists and sometimes Judges. None the less, for the purposes of the present discussion it is essential to distinguish between what is illegal and what is merely void. All unlawful or illegal agreements are void; but all void agreements are not necessarily illegal. It is often difficult to determine whether an agreement which is void is or is not also illegal. But a long line of cases in England enables one to deduce certain principles for the purpose of determining whether a contract or agreement in merely void or is illegal.
• Sir Fredrick Pollock in his Principles of Contract (13th edn.) after reviewing a number of cases lays down the following propositions (p.276) :
  • ‘When conditions are prescribed by statute for the conduct of any particular business or profession, and such conditions are not observed, agreements made in the course of such business or profession – …
  • (e) are void if it appears by the context that the object of the legislature in imposing the condition was the maintenance of public order or safety or the protection of the persons dealing with those on whom the condition is imposed :
  • (f) are valid if no specific penalty is attached to the specific transaction, and if it appears that the condition was imposed for merely administrative purposes … :
  • (h) Where no penalty is imposed, and the intention of the legislature appears to be simply that the agreement is not to be enforced, there neither the agreement itself nor the performance of it is to be treated as unlawful for any purpose’.”

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

• Order IX Rule 9 CPC: Earlier Suit for Injunction; Subsequent Suit for Recovery & Injunction – No Bar
• Replication, Rejoinder and Amendment of Pleadings
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• 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
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?
• 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
• 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?
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Waiver and Promissory Estoppel
• Can a Christian Adopt? Will an adopted child get share in the property of adoptive parents?
• Principles of Equity in Indian Law
• Thangam v.  Navamani Ammal: Did the Supreme Court lay down – Written Statements which deal with each allegation specifically, but not “para-wise”, are vitiated?
• No Criminal Case on a Dispute Essentially Civil in Nature.
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in Suits
• Order I rule 8, CPC (Representative Suit) When and How? Whether Order I rule 8 Decree is Enforceable in Execution?

Principles and Procedure

• BNSS – Major Changes from CrPC
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Important Changes from the Indian Penal Code
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• 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
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

• ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’
• 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
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs
• Title and Ownership in Indian Law
• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• Admission by itself Cannot Confer Title
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• 22nd Law Commission  Report on ‘Law on Adverse Possession’
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• 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
• Termination of Tenancy (& Grant) by Forfeiture (for Claiming Title)

Adverse Possession

• How to Plead Adverse Possession? Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession Against Government
• 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
• Declaration of Title & Recovery of Possession: Art. 65, not Art. 58, Limitation Act Governs

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
• Plantation Exemption in Kerala Land Reforms Act–in a Nutshell
• Kerala Land Reforms Act – Provisions on Plantation-Tenancy and Land-Tenancy
• Sec. 7 Easements Act – Natural Advantages Arising from the Situation of Land & Natural Flow of Water
• Grant in Law

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.

Evidence Act – General

• Newspaper Reports are ‘Hearsay Secondary Evidence’
• 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?

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
• Relevancy of Civil Case Judgments in Criminal Cases
• Prem Raj v.  Poonamma Menon (SC), April 2, 2024 – An Odd Decision on ‘Civil Court Judgment does not Bind Criminal Court’

Law on Documents

• Does Registration of a Document give Notice to the Whole World?
• 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
• All Illegal Agreements are Void; but All Void Agreements are Not Illegal
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance
• Cheating and Breach of Contract: Distinction – Fraudulent Intention at the time of Promise.

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
• Right of Private Way Beyond (Other Than) Easement
• Easement – Should Date of Beginning of 20 Years be pleaded?
• One Year Interruption or Obstruction will not affect Prescriptive Easement

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

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

• Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Sec. 138 NI Act (Cheque) Cases: Presumption of Consideration u/s. 118
• Even if ‘Signed-Blank-Cheque’, No Burden on Complainant to Prove Consideration; Rebuttal can be by a Probable Defence
• “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

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?

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’?
• A Witness to Hindu-Will will not Lose Benefit

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 v. 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
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Juristic Personality
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
  • Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920: Provisions as regards opinion, advice or direction of the Court.
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
  • Does Cheque-Case under Sec. 138, NI Act Lie Against a Trust?
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions