0

Supreme Court Remands Property Dispute Case for Fresh High Court Review

Blog, Supreme Court , ,

Court: Supreme Court of India

Quorum: Hon’ble J. Rajesh Bindal, J. Vikram Nath

Date: November 06, 2023

 

Facts of the case

Kallu Bhai bought a property in Indore in 1913 in the name of his three-year-old nephew, Mohd. Jafar. Kallu Bhai died without any children in 1952, and his second wife died in 1970. Syed Mohd. Hasan, who had been brought to live with Kallu Bhai, was around 7-8 years old when his mother died.

Due to poor health, Mohd. Jafar sold the property to Raza Hussain in 1975. In 1977, Raza Hussain filed a suit against Syed Mohd. Hasan for possession and damages. The trial court ruled in favor of Raza Hussain in 1995, but this decision was overturned by the High Court on appeal by Syed Mohd. Hasan.

 

Legal issue

Did the High Court err in reversing the trial court’s judgment without thoroughly discussing all the evidence on record?

 

Contentions of appellants

The petitioners argued that the trial court’s judgment favoring them was well-reasoned and supported by evidence, including the validity of the sale deed from 1975. They contended that the High Court erred in reversing this judgment without adequately discussing the evidence. They emphasized that the High Court failed to recognize the sale deed and the purchase agreement, both validated by a handwriting expert. The petitioners challenged the defendant’s claim of adverse possession, noting it was not initially pleaded. They argued the defendant was a licensee and not in rightful possession of the property. They highlighted that their predecessor issued eviction notices ignored by the defendant, leading to the civil suit. They asserted that the property was always in the possession of their predecessor-in-interest, negating the defendant’s adverse possession claim. They claimed a clear error in the High Court’s judgment warranted its reversal and the restoration of the trial court’s decree in their favor.

 

Contentions of the respondents

The agreement to sell and sale deed were registered from Late Mohd. Jafar within 15 days when he was in poor health. Mohd. Jafar was never in possession of the disputed property. It always remained with the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-defendant, who had been living with Late Kallu Bhai. The respondent-defendant was not in possession as a licensee, but in his own right. His possession was hostile to the knowledge of the owners who had sold the property. As the original owners had lost title to the property, it could not have been passed on to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. A plea of adverse possession was raised as an additional plea in the written statement, to which no reply was given by the appellants.

 

Judgment and Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had reversed the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment without properly discussing the entire evidence on record, which it was duty-bound to do. The court noted that the High Court failed to consider important evidence, including the opinion of a Handwriting Expert, testimony of witnesses to the sale deed, notices issued by the appellants’ predecessor to evict the respondent-defendant. The Supreme Court emphasized that as a First Appellate Court, the High Court was required to address all issues, decide the case with reasons, and show conscious application of mind to both law and facts. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not referred to all the evidence produced by parties on various issues for re-appreciation and had recorded findings referring to only part of the evidence. Due to these shortcomings, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to give priority to this case due to its age and to decide the matter afresh, considering all documentary and oral evidence without being prejudiced by any observations made in the Supreme Court’s order. In essence, the Supreme Court’s judgment focuses on procedural issues rather than the merits of the case. It emphasizes the importance of thorough evidence examination and reasoned decision-making by appellate courts, especially when overturning lower court judgments.

 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in reversing the trial court’s judgment without thoroughly examining all the evidence. As a result, the case was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of proper appellate review and thorough examination of evidence in legal proceedings.

Reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

Click here to read the Judgement.

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

0

SUPREME COURT GIVES ACTIVIST MAHESH RAUT INTERIM BAIL IN THE BHIMA-KOREGAON CASE.

Articles, Blog, News & Media links, Supreme Court , , , , , , , , , ,

Mahesh Raut, an activist and one of the defendants in the Bhima-Koregaon case, was recently granted interim release by the Supreme Court for two weeks so that he could attend rites when his grandmother passed away.

Raut was granted temporary bail by a vacation bench consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti from June 26 to July 10.The bench mandated Raut’s unconditional surrender on July 10. It further stated that the Special NIA court’s terms and conditions will apply to the interim bail.

“Taking into account the facts and circumstances, the length of Raut’s previous incarceration, and the nature of the request, we are inclined to give interim bail of two weeks to the applicant, which may begin on June 26 and expire on July 10. The NIA Special Court will specify the conditions of release. NIA may ask the trial court to set strict requirements. The judgement from the highest court said that the petitioner must surrender on July 10.

The 33-year-old Raut’s request for temporary release was rejected by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Raut’s attorney informed the supreme court on the final day of the trial that he was pleading for an interim release so he could go to Gadchiroli to attend funeral rites following the passing of his grandmother.

The Bombay High Court’s September 21 ruling allowing Raut, who was detained in June 2018 and is now being held in judicial custody at the Taloja jail, bail was challenged by NIA, and the supreme court granted the stay. Prosecution claims that comments made during the gathering, which was reportedly sponsored by the CPI(M), a banned terror organisation, were provocative and inflammatory, and that this ultimately resulted in violence in Koregaon Bhima hamlet, close to Pune, in 2018.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

0

SUPREME COURT HAS SET ASIDE GUJRAT HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT AND RELEASED THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE OF ROBERRY & MURDER

Articles, Supreme Court , , , , , , , , , , ,

CASE NAME: THAKORE UMEDSING NATHUSING V. STATE OF GUJARAT
CASE NUMBER: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1102 OF 2024

DATED ON: FEBRUARY 22, 2024
QUORUM: Honourable Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice Sandeep Mehta

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellants, Thakore Laxmansing Halsing, Thakore Pravinsing Rajsing, Thakore Umedsing Nathusing, Thakore Khemsing Halsing, and Thakore Prabhatsing Kapursing, were tried in Sessions Case Nos. 107 and 143 of 1990 respectively. They were convicted under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/­. The trial court acquitted them of the charges under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 396 and 397 IPC. The appellants appealed, while the State appealed, seeking acquittal.

A man named Vithalbhai Kachrabhai Barot was accused of murdering a man who used to drive a Jeep. The case was registered at Gadh Police Station, Taluka Palanpur, Gujarat, and an investigation began. On March 2, 1990, a jeep was driven away at high speed near Charannagar, Ahmedabad. Four persons alighted from the jeep and tried to run away. One of them, Laxmansing (A1), was chased down and confessed to the murder and looting of the vehicle. The remaining four accused were apprehended, and a blood-stained knife was recovered.

The investigation concluded that the accused took the jeep taxi of Bharatbhai (deceased) on hire and murdered the victim and looted the jeep. Two separate charge sheets were filed against the accused, and both sets were committed to the Sessions Court, Banaskantha, at Palanpur. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidence, the trial court acquitted A1, A2, A3, and A5 in entirety. They were convicted for the offense punishable under Section 392 of the IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/¬. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them for the offenses punishable under Sections 302 and 396 IPC, sentenced them to life imprisonment, and maintained the fine and default sentence imposed by the trial court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

  • INDIAN PENAL CODE:
  • Section-34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention ; When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
  • Section-302: Punishment for murder; Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
  • Section_392: Punishment for Robbery; Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
  • Section-396: Dacoity with Murder; If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
  • Section-397: Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt; If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

ISSUES RAISED:

Two fundamental issues are presented for adjudication in these appeals:­

  • The scope of interference by High Court in an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused by the trial Court;
  • The standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED APPELLANTS:­

The learned counsel for accused appellants argue that the prosecution failed to prove the ownership or possession of a jeep bearing registration No. GJ-08-114 by the deceased. They also argue that the incriminating articles were never examined through the Forensic Sciences Laboratories (FSL), and only blood samples were sent for serological examination. The accused also argue that there is no reliable evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the convictions of A2, A3, and A5 are based solely on the confessional statement of A1, which is inadmissible in evidence under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The accused contend that the High Court’s findings are based on conjectures and surmises, and they are entitled to an acquittal.

 

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT­ STATE:­

Appearing for the respondent­ State vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel representing the accused­ appellants. She submitted that the High Court, after thorough and apropos appreciation of the substantial and convincing circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution, has recorded unimpeachable findings holding the accused guilty of the offences. She thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeals and affirm the judgment of the High Court.

COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court has analysed the impugned judgement and the evidence available on record, finding that the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including disclosures, recoveries, and discoveries, to bring home the guilt of the accused. The most important recovery is attributed to A1, who was apprehended by PSI J.N. Chaudhary on 02nd March, 1990. He forwarded a report/communication dated 2nd March, 1990, wherein A1 confessed to the crime of murdering the jeep driver and looting the jeep and named the other accused persons as particeps criminis.

The court found that the confession of an accused in custody recorded by a police officer is inadmissible in evidence as the same would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution did not even attempt to prove the confessional part of the communication . The court also found that the identity of A2, A3, and A5 as the assailants on the basis of the disclosure statement of A1 were primarily convicted on the basis of the recoveries of knives and clothes.

The court found that the recoveries were highly doubtful and tainted, as they did not lead to any conclusive circumstance in form of Serological report establishing the presence of the same blood group as that of the deceased. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to lead the link evidence mandatorily required to establish the factum of safe keeping of the muddamal articles, making the recoveries irrelevant.

The court has already doubted the veracity of the disclosure statement of A1 as recorded by and concluded that the evidentiary value of the confession of one co-accused against the other cannot be treated as substantive evidence.

The prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence to prove the accused’s guilt for murder under Section 302 IPC. The High Court did not record any finding that the trial court’s view was perverse or unfavorable. The judgment is based on conjectures and surmises, rather than substantive or reliable circumstantial evidence. The conviction for Section 392 is also based on the same set of inadmissible and unreliable links of circumstantial evidence.

CONCLUSION: ­

The High Court of Gujarat in Ahmedabad has quashed and set aside two previous judgements, Criminal Appeal No. 1012 of 1993 and Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 1994, which were based on the same record. The trial court’s judgment dated 21st August, 1993, convicting and sentencing the accused for offences punishable under Section 392 IPC, is also quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and are directed to be set at liberty immediately, unless otherwise required.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: ABHISHEK SINGH

Click here to view the full judgement: THAKORE UMEDSING NATHUSING V. STATE OF GUJARAT

0

Even if there is 0.001% negligence, it should be dealt with thoroughly: SC raps NTA, Centre over NEET Exam irregularities

News & Media links, Supreme Court , , , , , , , , , ,

Amid worries over the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) for admission to medical institutions, the Supreme Court today slammed the National Testing Agency (NTA), which administers the statewide exam for medical college applicants.

“If there’s even 0.001% negligence on anyone’s part, it should be thoroughly dealt with,” the Supreme Court stated. The Supreme Court, in hearing a batch of petitions over alleged anomalies in the exam, stated that it expected “timely action” from the NTA and that the organisation must guarantee that all applicants are treated equitably.

“As the agency in charge of the exam, you must be fair. If there is an error, say yes, it is a mistake, and here is the course of action we will pursue. At the very least, that gives you confidence in your performance,” said a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti to the NTA. The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of students’ preparation for one of the country’s most difficult admission tests, stating that if someone who has cheated the system becomes a doctor, they are even more detrimental to society. It emphasised that children must study hard in order to pass NEET. “The next hearing in the case will be held on July 8.”

Last week, the NTA informed the Supreme Court that the grace marks awarded to 1,563 applicants in the NEET-UG test will be revoked, and the participants will be given the option of retaking the exam on June 23. The findings of the re-test will be announced by June 30, the Supreme Court was told.

If any of these applicants elected not to take the re-test, their previous score would be returned, minus the additional marks.
The results for the medical entrance test, which was taken by 24 lakh candidates on May 5, were released on June 4. Allegations of a test paper leak quickly emerged. As many as 67 students received flawless scores of 720/720.

Several students were offered grace marks, reportedly to compensate for lost time at the exam centre. Many student associations have complained of claimed NEET irregularities, including the release of incorrect question papers, ripped Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets, and delays in sheet delivery.

Written By: Abhishek Singh

0

The Supreme Showdown: Unravelling the Sevika Saga and Nepotism Clauses.

Blog, Supreme Court , , , , , ,

Date: January 08, 2024.

Court: Supreme Court of India.

Quorum: Hon’ble J. B.R. Gavai, J. Sandeep Mehta.

 

Background of the Case

The case revolves around the appointment of Anganwadi workers (Sevikas) in the state of Bihar. In October 2012, the District Programme Officer in Katihar published a notice for the selection of Anganwadi workers. Both Anjum Ara (the appellant) and the respondent applied for the position. Anjum Ara scored 80.60 marks, while The respondent scored 48.60 marks. Consequently, Anjum Ara was appointed as an Anganwadi Sevika on July 2, 2013.

Aggrieved by Anjum Ara’s appointment, the respondent filed a representation before the District Programme Officer, seeking cancellation of Anjum Ara’s appointment order and a direction for her own appointment. The District Programme Officer rejected her representation on November 13, 2014. The respondent then appealed to the Appellate Authority (the Court of Joint Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Purnea), which allowed her appeal on July 30, 2015, setting aside Anjum Ara’s appointment order.

 

Legal Issues

Whether Clause 4.9 of the Anganwadi Sevika Guidelines, 2011, which imposed restrictions on the appointment of persons whose family members were employed with the State Government or its organizations, is valid and constitutional under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution of India?

Legal Provisions

The case dealt with the interpretation of Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines and its compliance with Articles 14 (right to equality) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment) of the Constitution of India.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Anjum Ara contended that Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines, which formed the basis for her disqualification, had been found to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in another case (CWJC No. 13210 of 2014). However, the learned Division Bench of the High Court ignored this fact while dismissing her appeal.

Contentions of the Respondents

The State of Bihar and The respondent asserted that Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines was a valid restriction to prevent nepotism in public employment. They argued that the High Court’s decision striking down the clause in a separate case was not binding on Anjum Ara since she did not challenge it herself. The respondents emphasized the selection process was a matter of administrative discretion where courts should not interfere unless there is a constitutional violation. They contended that setting aside Anjum Ara’s appointment in favour of the lower scoring The respondent was justified based on principles of merit and fair selection.

Judgment and Analysis

The Supreme Court allowed Anjum Ara’s appeal and set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court found that both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench had erred in dismissing Anjum Ara’s writ petition and appeal.

The Court observed that Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines had been struck down by the High Court in CWJC No. 13210 of 2014 as violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Once the clause was declared invalid, it ceased to exist. Therefore, it was not necessary for Anjum Ara to challenge the validity of the clause separately, as it had already been held invalid by the same High Court.

The Supreme Court held that the reasoning adopted by the learned Division Bench was unsustainable in law. When a provision has been declared unconstitutional and invalid by a court, it cannot be applied to deny someone’s rights, even if the person did not challenge the provision individually.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed Anjum Ara’s appeal, quashed the judgments of the High Court, and directed her reinstatement forthwith. Although she would not be entitled to wages for the period she was out of employment, she would be granted continuity in service for all other purposes.

This judgment reinforces the principle that once a provision or law has been declared unconstitutional by a court, it ceases to have any legal effect, and no person can be denied their rights based on such an invalid provision. The judgment upholds the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution and ensures that individuals are not deprived of their rightful employment opportunities based on arbitrary and unconstitutional criteria.

Judgement reviewed by Maria Therese Syriac.

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

1 2 3 … 6