Posts

Showing posts from January, 2017

Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code. - As held by this Court in Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh and others[2], at paragraph-52: “52. The High Court, in our considered opinion, stepped into prohibited area of considering correctness of allegations and evidence in support of averments by entering into the merits of the case which would be permissible only at the stage of trial of the election petition and not at the stage of consideration whether the election petition was maintainable and dismissed the petition. The said action, therefore, cannot be upheld and the order deserves to be set aside.” As we have been taken through the averments in the election petition and we are satisfied that the petition has disclosed a cause of action, it is not necessary to remit the petition for a fresh enquiry in that regard. The appeal is however allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the election petition is remitted to the High Court to try it on merits expeditiously, and being one filed in the year 2013, preferably within a period of four months.

REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4080 OF 2014



KULDEEP SINGH PATHANIA                         … APPELLANTS (S)

                                  VERSUS

BIKRAM SINGH JARYAL                            … RESPONDENT(S)




                               J U D G M E N T




KURIAN, J.:


Chapter III of Part VI  of  The  Representation  of  the  People  Act,  1951
(hereinafter referred  to  as  “the  Act”)  deals  with  trial  of  election
petitions. Under Section 86(1) of the Act, “the High Court shall dismiss  an
election petition which does not comply with the provisions  of  Section  81
or Section 82 or Section 117”.  Section 100 of the Act provides for  grounds
for declaring election  to  be  void.  Section  100(1)(d)(iii)  of  the  Act
provides that an election of a returned candidate  can  be  declared  t…

WHETHER THE VALUE FOR PECUNIARY JURISDICTION -VS- COURT FEE IS ONE AND THE SAME

AP Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act CHAPTER 4 COMPUTATION OF FEE 19. Fee how computed :- The fee payable under this Act shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, Chapter VI, Chapter VIII and Schedules I and II. 20. Suits for money :- In a suit for money (including a suit for damages, or compensation, or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically), fee shall be computed on the amount claimed. 21. Suits for immovable property :- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, in a suit relating to immovable property, fee shall be computed on three-fourths of the market value of the property. 22. Suits for maintenance and annuities :- In the suits hereinafter mentioned, fee shall be computed as follows :- (a) in a suit for maintenance, on the amount claimed to be payable for one year; (b) in a suit for enhancement or reduction of maintenance, on the amount by which the annual maintenance is sought to be enhanced or reduced; (c) in a suit …

the party claiming title over the land by adverse possession since in possession of the land by virtue of the unregistered and unstamped sale deed executed in their favour by the predecessors in interest of the other party who are while admitting the possession claims as trespasser and the plaintiffs possession for last 26 years proved and the claim of the defendant regarding taking over of possession from the plaintiff when found to be false, from plaintiff in hostile and continuous possession thereby held proved prescriptive right perfected by adverse possession. Similar are the expressions even earlier saying where no arrangement proved to show possession permissive and not adverse, the possession is adverse from not otherwise vide Mudragada Satyanarayana V. Jammi Veerraju and if in possession under invalid document by virtue of which the transferee gets no title or right, his possession is adverse to the transferor to count for adverse possession as person in possession claiming right of his own against the real owner under invalid document is tantamount to denial of title vide, Bharit V The Hon'Ble Board Of Revenue following the apex Courts expression in State of West Bengal v. Dalhousie Institute Society , where it was held that a person in possession under an invalid grant acquired title by adverse possession and for that referred the earlier expression of the apex Court in Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay where the Court observed: "......... the position of the respondent Corporation and its predecessor in title was that of a person having no legal title but nevertheless holding possession of the land under colour of an invalid grant of the land in perpetuity and free from rent for the purpose of a market. Such possession not being referable to any legal title it was prima facie adverse to the legal title of the Government as owner of the land from the very moment the predecessor in title of the respondent Corporation took possession of the land under the invalid grant.- when P perfected title by adverse possession from his open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession in his own way of enjoyment and not on behalf of G the original owner under the void gift, right from said un-registered gift deed dated 21.02.1966 (Ex.B-2) the plaintiffs suit for declaration which is beyond three years barred by law under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, though otherwise maintainable for recovery of possession under Article 65 of the Act, since the right and title of G since extinguished and right by adverse possession created in favour of P, G is not entitled to the suit reliefs and thereby, the trial Court when dismissed the suit, for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere. 45) In the result, the appeal is dismissed, as the dismissal decree and judgment of the trial Court is otherwise sustainable for nothing to interfere. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO          

C.C.C.A. No.86 of 2005

19-02-2016

G.Narayan Reddy.Appellant  

P.Narayana Reddy . Respondent  

Counsel for the Appellant:M/s.Bharadwaj Associates
                           Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana senior counsel
Counsel for the Respondent :  Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1.      (2015) 7 SCC 601
2.      (2009) 12 SCC 101
3.      (2004) 10 SCC 779
4.      (2005) 8 SCC 330
5.      (2009) 13 SCC 229
6.      2003(3) ALT 716 (D.B)
7.      AIR 1953 Patna 365
8.      AIR 1919 Privy Council 44
9.      AIR 1970 SC 1778
10.     AIR 1951 SC 469
11.     AIR 2003 SC 1905(1)
12.     2011(1) ALT 1 (SC)
13.     AIR-1976-SC-634
14.     AIR-1969-SC-1144
15.     AIR 2003 SC 1880
16.     AIR 2003 SC 1989=2003(9) SCC 606  
17.     AIR 1963 SC 1516=1964(1) SCR 980  
18.     AIR 1953 SC 235
19.     965(3) SCR 550
20.     AIR 2003 SC 4548=8 SCC 752=(8) Supreme Today 194    
21.     (2004)1 SCC 271
22.     200…