#keralahighcourt Archives - Page 8 of 11

13 Jul

Validity of ‘Gift’ Under Mohammedan Law Contingent on Delivery of Possession to Donee, Kerala High Court Judgment

Prime Legal

Blog #gift, #keralahighcourt

Case Title: Abdul Jabbar v. Khadeeja Beevi & Ors.

Bench : P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

Date : THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2023

Facts:

The judgement and decree of the Additional Munsiff-II in O.S.No.516 of 2003 were reversed by the Sub Judge in appeal (A.S.No.99 of 2004) on September 18, 2010.
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the reversal of the decree.
The substantial question of law formulated by the court for consideration was whether the finding that the donor did not part with possession, despite the provision in the gift deed (Ext.A1) for taking usufructs during the donor’s lifetime, is sustainable, and if so, whether the gift deed is valid.

Analysis:

The appellant, as the donee, claimed that he had accepted the gift and taken possession of the property mentioned in Ext.A1.
The respondents argued that the gift was not valid as there was no delivery of possession by the donor as required under Muhammadan Law.
The trial court found the gift to be valid based on the documents and testimonies, but the First Appellate Court held that possession was not delivered, making the gift invalid.

Judgement:

The court referred to the requirements for a valid gift under Muhammadan Law, including a declaration of the gift, acceptance by the donee, and delivery of possession.
The court noted that while there was a declaration and acceptance, there was no evidence of delivery of possession of 2½ cents of property to the appellant as specified in Ext.A1.
The court held that the reservation of the right to take usufructs during the donor’s lifetime does not invalidate the gift, but the absence of possession delivery renders the gift invalid.
As the appellant failed to provide evidence of possession, the court concluded that Ext.A1 did not create a valid gift, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

click here to view 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.”

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

13 Jul

Kerala High Court Stays Approval Over Creation Of Students Grievance Redressal Committees In Colleges For a Month.

Prime Legal

Blog #keralahighcourt

Case Title: The Council of Principals of Colleges in Kerala & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Bench: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

Date: 5th day of July 2023

Facts:

The Special Government Pleader accepted notice for respondents 1 and 2.
The Standing Counsel accepted notice for the 3rd respondent.
The Counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 presented their arguments.
An interim order was issued staying Exhibit P1 for a period of one month.
The Government Pleader requested additional time to file a counter affidavit.

ANALYSIS:

Acceptance of notice: The Special Government Pleader accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, while the Standing Counsel accepted notice for the 3rd respondent. This indicates that the relevant parties have been officially notified about the case and are expected to participate.
Arguments presented: The learned Counsel for the petitioners (the individuals or group bringing the petition) and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 presented their arguments before the court. This suggests that both sides had the opportunity to present their positions and supporting evidence or legal reasoning.
Interim order: The court issued an interim order, which temporarily stays or suspends the implementation or enforcement of Exhibit P1. The specifics of Exhibit P1 are not provided, but the court deemed it necessary to halt its effects for a one-month period. This suggests that the court acknowledged some concerns or issues raised by the petitioners that require further examination.
Counter affidavit: The Government Pleader requested additional time to file a counter affidavit. A counter affidavit is a written statement that responds to the claims made by the petitioners. By requesting more time, the Government Pleader is given the opportunity to prepare a comprehensive response to the allegations or arguments put forth by the petitioners.
Postponement of the case: It was decided to post the case after one month, indicating that the court will reconvene or schedule a hearing at that time. The court is in the early stages of hearing a case. The court has issued an interim order, granted time for the respondents to prepare a counter affidavit, and scheduled a future hearing to further evaluate the matter.

Judgement:

The court granted an interim order staying Exhibit P1 for a period of one month. This means that the implementation or enforcement of Exhibit P1 is temporarily halted for the specified duration.
The Government Pleader was given time to file a counter affidavit, indicating that they will prepare a written response to the petitioners’ claims or arguments.

It was decided that the case will be posted after one month, which suggests that the court will reconvene or schedule a hearing at that time to further deliberate on the matter.

WRITTEN BY- ANVITHA RAO

12 Jul

KERALA HIGH COURT DISMISSES ANTICIPATORY BAIL PLEAS OF PRINCIPAL, SFI LEADER

Prime Legal

Blog #keralahighcourt

Case Title: Shyju G.J. v. State of Kerala and Visakh A. v. State of Kerala

Bench : BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

Date : 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

Facts:

Applications for anticipatory bail were filed by the first accused (Principal of Christian College, Kattakada) and the second accused (a first-year degree student of the same college) under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Crime No. 814 of 2023 was registered based on a complaint by the Registrar of Kerala University, alleging that the accused created false documents, committed criminal breach of trust, and cheated by forging election documents of the Christian College. These actions were allegedly done to enable the second accused to participate in Kerala University Union elections.
The defence argued that the allegations were baseless and, even if assumed true, only warranted disciplinary proceedings rather than criminal charges. They claimed that the first accused had the authority to fill a vacancy under the Kerala University Act and that the actions were within their powers.
The prosecution contended that custodial interrogation was necessary for a thorough investigation and opposed the applications for anticipatory bail.

Analysis:

It appears that there is a dispute regarding the allegations of creating false documents, criminal breach of trust, and cheating by the accused in order to facilitate the second accused’s participation in the university elections. The defence argues that the actions were within the powers of the first accused as the Principal and that they do not warrant criminal charges. On the other hand, the prosecution believes that custodial interrogation is necessary to conduct a comprehensive investigation.

Judgement:

Considering the aforesaid submission, direct that in the event of the first and second accused surrendering before the Investigating Officer on 04.07.2023, they shall be interrogated and thereafter the procedure contemplated in accordance with law shall be complied with. These anticipatory bail applications are therefore dismissed as above.

WRITTEN BY- ANVITHA RAO

6 Jul

KAAPA | Kerala High Court: Preventive Detention Order Violates Due to Unreasonable Delay by Detaining Authority in Seeking “Additional Particulars”

Prime Legal

Blog #keralahighcourt

Case Title: Ambika B. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Bench : P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.

Date : 3RD DAY OF July, 2023.

Facts:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce her son, Ajeesh, who was detained under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.
The detention order (Ext.P1) stated that Ajeesh, a known rowdy, needed to be detained to prevent him from committing further anti-social activities.
Ext.P1 order mentioned Ajeesh’s involvement in Crime No.360 of 2022 and stated that he was released on bail on 24.08.2022.
The sponsoring authority recommended Ajeesh’s detention under the Act on 22.09.2022, and after obtaining additional particulars, the detention order was issued on 07.01.2023. The detention was confirmed by the government on 02.03.2023 for a period of six months from the date of detention.
The petitioner raised several grounds to challenge the detention order, including unreasonable delay, non-compliance of procedural requirements, and failure to consider the detenu’s representations.

Judgement:

The court examined the arguments and perused the files presented by the parties.
The court found that a copy of the detention order and supporting documents were forwarded to the State Government and the State Police Chief on the date of the order itself, refuting the petitioner’s claim of non-compliance with reporting requirements.
The court observed that the detenu had submitted representations to the government and the Advisory Board, and there was no mention of illegible documents hindering his right to effective representation.
The court further noted that the representations submitted by the detenu were considered by the government and the Advisory Board before confirming the detention order.
Regarding the delay in issuing the detention order, the court acknowledged the need for a live and proximate link between the detenu’s prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention.
The court found that the delay from the date of Ajeesh’s release on bail until the recommendation for detention (24.08.2022 to 22.09.2022) was reasonable.
However, the court held that the delay from 24.08.2022 to 07.01.2023, during which additional particulars were sought, was unreasonable and raised doubts about the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
The court quashed the detention order and directed Ajeesh’s immediate release from the Central Prison, Viyur, unless his detention was required for other reasons. Overall, the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the detention order.

click here to view judgement

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

6 Jul

The Kerala High Court warns prison officials against unnecessary delays and detention of lawyers visiting clients in jail.

Prime Legal

Blog #keralahighcourt

Case Title: Thushar Nirmal Sarathy v. State of Kerala

Bench : P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

Date : 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

Facts:

A lawyer filed a writ petition regarding the denial of permission to meet his client, a convicted prisoner undergoing life imprisonment at Central Prison, Poojappura.
The lawyer sought permission to meet the client for the purpose of signing legal documents.
The court acknowledged the importance of lawyers in the judicial process and their role as officers of the court.

Analysis:

The court recognized the significance of lawyers in the judicial system, as they assist in reaching the correct conclusions and ensuring a fair trial.
The court expressed concern over any unnecessary delays or restrictions faced by lawyers when visiting prisons to meet their clients.
The court emphasised the constitutional right of prisoners to legal assistance and stated that prisoners’ fundamental rights are not completely extinguished and are subject to judicial oversight.
The court referred to previous judgments highlighting the importance of prisoners’ rights to consult legal advisers and the duty of prison authorities to provide reasonable facilities for interviews, communication, and legal aid.
The court cited relevant sections and rules of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, and the Kerala Prisons Rules, 1958, affirming prisoners’ rights to access legal assistance and engage in correspondence.

Judgement:

The court directed the prison authority (third respondent) to ensure that the client’s papers are signed if the client is willing to do so.
The third respondent submitted an affidavit expressing regret for any inconvenience caused to the petitioner lawyer, stating that the incident was not intentional.
The court accepted the affidavit and noted that the petitioner’s grievance had been redressed, leading to the closure of the writ petition.
The court emphasised that prison authorities should assist prisoners in meeting their lawyers and ensure that lawyers are given due respect without unnecessary detention.
The court suggested the issuance of a circular by the concerned authority to all jails in the state, reinforcing the rights of lawyers visiting prisons for professional purposes.

click here to view judgement

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11