Or. 9 rule 13 of CPC – set aside exparte decree -Litigation should not be terminated by default – adjudication be done on merits.

Or. 9 rule 13 of CPC – set aside exparte decree -Litigation should not be terminated by default –  adjudication be done on merits. 8. Ordinarily, a litigation is based on adjudication on the merits of the contentions of the parties. Litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The… Read More Or. 9 rule 13 of CPC – set aside exparte decree -Litigation should not be terminated by default – adjudication be done on merits.

Whether for remanding the accused (appellant), Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. could have been resorted to by the Special Judge or remand could have been done only under Section 309(2) Cr.P.C.whether Section 309(2) of the Code stands in the way of a Court, which has taken cognizance of an offence, to authorise the detention of a person, who is subsequently brought before it by the police under arrest during further investigation, in police custody in exercise of its power under Section 167 of the Code.

Whether for remanding the accused (appellant), Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. could have been resorted to by the Special Judge or remand could have been done only under Section 309(2) Cr.P.C. whether Section 309(2) of the Code stands in the way of a Court, which has taken cognizance of an offence, to authorise the detention of a… Read More Whether for remanding the accused (appellant), Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. could have been resorted to by the Special Judge or remand could have been done only under Section 309(2) Cr.P.C.whether Section 309(2) of the Code stands in the way of a Court, which has taken cognizance of an offence, to authorise the detention of a person, who is subsequently brought before it by the police under arrest during further investigation, in police custody in exercise of its power under Section 167 of the Code.

in the absence of the counsel for the appellant-accused, the High Court should not have decided the appeal on merits and prayed for remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

K.S. Panduranga vs. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721 and submitted that in the absence of the counsel for the appellant-accused, the High Court should not have decided the appeal on merits and prayed for remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits. 3 The respondent-complainant though served, has not… Read More in the absence of the counsel for the appellant-accused, the High Court should not have decided the appeal on merits and prayed for remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

for relinquishment of share – circumstance can be taken in to considered in the absence of specific relinquishment deed

for relinquishment of share – circumstance can be taken in to considered in the absence of specific relinquishment deed It is submitted that the High Court has materially erred in not accepting the same on the ground that there is no Deed of 9 Relinquishment executed by Triza Kalyani John @ A.S. Meenakshi and as such the Deed of Relinquishment is required to be registered.  we are of the view that the High Court has completely erred in holding that the plaintiffs would   have   1/4th  share   in   the   suit   property   being  the   heirs   of deceased Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi –the daughter of John D.Abraham.  It was the specific case on behalf of defendant nos. 1 & 2that at the time of marriage of Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi withoriginal plaintiff no.1, she converted to Hinduism and her name was changed to A.S. Meenakshi.   It was the specific case on behalf of  defendant nos. 1 & 2 that at the relevant time when the said Triza Kalyani John @ Meenakshi had married to original plaintiff no.1 and converted to Hinduism, there was opposition.   However, despite the same,… Read More for relinquishment of share – circumstance can be taken in to considered in the absence of specific relinquishment deed

Limitation is 12 years when the suit for declaration and for possession from the date when the possession of land becomes adverse to the plaintiff ; The Civil Court can grant lesser relief or smaller version of the relief claimed or prayed for can be granted. the plaintiffs had prayed that they were Inamdars and that the High Court had created a new case for the plaintiffs by declaring them to be Mutawalis.

Limitation is 12 years when the suit for declaration and for possession from the date when the possession of land becomes adverse to the plaintiff The Civil Court can grant lesser relief or smaller version of the relief claimed or prayed for can be granted. the plaintiffs had prayed that they were Inamdars and that… Read More Limitation is 12 years when the suit for declaration and for possession from the date when the possession of land becomes adverse to the plaintiff ; The Civil Court can grant lesser relief or smaller version of the relief claimed or prayed for can be granted. the plaintiffs had prayed that they were Inamdars and that the High Court had created a new case for the plaintiffs by declaring them to be Mutawalis.

whether the suit property was coparcenary property or self­acquired property of Dharam Singh;

(i) whether the suit property was coparcenary property or self­acquired property of Dharam Singh?  With respect to the first issue, it is the admitted position that Inder Singh had inherited the entire suit property from his father Lal Singh upon his death. As per the Mutation Entry dated 16.01.1956 produced by Respondent No. 1, Lal Singh’s death took place in 1951. Therefore, the succession in this case   opened   in   1951   prior  to   the   commencement   of   the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 when Inder Singh succeeded to his father Lal’s Singh’s property in accordance with the old Hindu Mitakshara law. Mulla in his commentary on Hindu Law (22nd  Edition) has stated the position with respect to succession under Mitakshara law as follows: Page 129 “A son, a grandson whose father is dead, and a great­grandson   whose   father   and   grandfather are both dead, succeed simultaneously as single heir to the separate or self­acquired property of the deceased with rights of survivorship.” Page 327 “All property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father’s father or father’s father’s father, is  ancestral property.  The  essential  feature of… Read More whether the suit property was coparcenary property or self­acquired property of Dharam Singh;

Whether consumption of liquioror found in consumption position in Private Vehicle is an offence in Bihar State ?

Whether consumption of liquioror found in consumption position in Private Vehicle is an offence in Bihar State ? When the word ‘consumes’ is followed by liquor, the action   denoted   by   verb   passes   over   from   the   doer   to object i.e.   liquor to constitute the offences within the meaning of Section 53(a). The action of consumption of liquor has to happen within the State of Bihar. A person who consumes liquor in a different State cannot be fastened with a penalty under Section 53(a) unless there   is   some   evidence   to   prove… Read More Whether consumption of liquioror found in consumption position in Private Vehicle is an offence in Bihar State ?