#Trailcourt Archives - Prime Legal

22 Feb

Appellants must include accurate copies of the Trial Court’s and First Appellate Court’s judgements in their filings: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #appellatecourt, #civil, #judgement, #SupremeCourt, #Trailcourt

Case title: Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust vs Ganga Bai Menariya.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No.722 Of 2012

Decided on: 20.02.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Justice.

Hon’ble Justices stated that, “a suit simpliciter for injunction may not be maintainable as the title of the property of the plaintiff/respondent was disputed by the appellants/defendants. In such a situation it was required for the respondent/plaintiff to prove the title of the property while praying for injunction.

“When five different suits were filed by different persons while filing the documents with the paper book filed in this Court, it was incumbent upon the appellants to place on record correct copies of the judgments of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court for each of the case.”

BRIEF FACTS:

A civil suit was filed to resolve a disagreement over the ownership and possession of a parcel of land. The petitioners claimed to have bought the land from the village Panchayat in 1959 and requested a perpetual injunction as well as ownership of the land. The appellants, however, claimed that the land was government property designated for cattle grazing. The First Appellate Court overturned the Trial Court’s ruling and decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. The High Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, noting that evidence supported the respondents’ ownership claim and entitlement to a permanent injunction. As a result, this appeal is being made.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

After carefully analysing the evidence, the court determined that the respondents had failed to prove the document on the basis of which they claimed a right of possession of the property in question, and that nothing on record demonstrated that the due process required for leasing out/selling the land in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by private negotiation was followed. The village Panchayat, from whom the land was taken, was not joined as a party to admit or deny the allegations made by the respondents in the plaint.

Respondents contend that document was over 30 years old, there was a presumption of truth under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. The court held that if a document is more than 30 years old and is produced from proper custody, a presumption exists that the signatures and every other part of such document that purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person are in that person’s handwriting, and that if a document is executed or attested, it was executed and attested by the persons by whom it asserts to be executed and attested. This does not imply a presumption that the recitals are correct.

The First Appellate Court’s and the High Court’s judgements and decrees were overturned, and the Trial Court’s order was restored.

“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 – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

20 Sep

Madras High Court says there is no ground to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court in convicting an accused.

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #accused, #Convicting, #Justice G. Jayachandran, #MadrasHighCourt, #Trailcourt

Title: V. Radhakrishnan. Vs. The State.

Decided On: September 19, 2023.

Crl.A.No.627 of 2016.

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran.

Facts:

The accused while serving as VAO of Kottathupatty Village, demand of illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- in two instalments of Rs.1000/- by the accused for name transfer in the Patta was lodged on 24.11.2003 at 9.30 a.m. After registration of the case, trap was laid. At about 15.15 hours the accused demanded and accepted Rs.1000/- from the defacto complainant. The said transaction was witnessed by the shadow witness Paramasivam.The phenolphthalein smeared currency of one 500 Rupees notes and five hundred rupees notes were recovered from the accused which was kept in the left outer shirt pocket. The trial Court framed charges under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act. The trial Court accepting the case of the defacto complainant regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs.1000/- as bribe by the accused on 24.11.2003, convicted and sentenced him to undergo 1 year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo 6 months S.I for the offence under Section 7 of P.C Act and to undergo 2 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo S.I for 6 months. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, Special Court for trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

It is a case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- smeared with the phenolphthalein and marked under the Entrustment Mahazar was recovered from the accused under Seizure Mahazar. The currency recovered from the accused tallied with the currency number found in the Entrustment Mahazar. In addition, the hands of the accused was tested with the Sodium Carbonate solution. The solution turned red indicates handling of phenolphthalein. The shirt pocket portion where the money was kept by the accused also subjected to the phenolphthalein test and proved positive. The trial Court has also found that there is no corroboration for the allegations of second demand on 22.11.2003. However, the third demand on the day of the trap and successful completion of the trap leads to the inference of the previous demand. The third demand and proof of third demand cannot be an inference for the earlier demand unless and until, it is proved beyond doubt. In this case the second demand on 22.11.2003 lacks corroboration, but it does not disproved the case of the prosecution in respect of the demand on 24.11.2003 and the receipt of the same by the accused. The defence taken by the accused that the money was planted in his shirt pocket is not probable, since not only his shirt pocket portion, but both of his hands were found positive for phenolphthalein. Unless and until the accused had received the money and counted it before keeping it in his pocket, it is impossible for both his hands to contact phenolphthalein. Neither PW.2 nor PW.3 had any animosity against this appellant to depose facts which is not true. Inspite of incise cross examination of these two witnesses, their credibility has not impeached. Therefore, the evidence of 2^nd witness corroborated by the eye witness 3^rd witness of the prosecution for demand and acceptance of Rs.1,000/- on 24.11.2003 during the trap besides scientific proof. Recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused prove the case of the prosecution to the core. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. There is no ground to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court.

Conclusion:

The Court Concludes that this Criminal Appeal shall be dismissed and the trial Court conviction and sentence shall be confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

6 Sep

Madras High Court directed the trail court to consider the petitioners grounds in a case of defamation and Dispose it in 3 months.

Prime Legal

blog, Blog # Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH, #defamation, #MadrasHighCourt, #Trailcourt

TITLE. L. Murugan Vs. Murasoli Trust.

Decided On: September 5, 2023.

Criminal Original Petition No.10277 & Crl.M.P.No.6094 of 2022.

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.

Facts:

The petitioner is the former State President of the Bharatiya Janata Party and presently, he is the Minister of State in the Central Government. Certain alleged defamatory statements were made by the petitioner when he attended a press meet on 28.12.2020. The Respondent appealed that the statements were made by the petitioner with an ulterior motive to degrade and tarnish the reputation of the Murasoli Trust in the eyes of the general public. After the said statements were made by the petitioner in the press meet and they were published in the newspapers, a legal notice dated 29.12.2020 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to withdraw the defamatory statements and to tender unconditional apology. The petitioner, in spite of receiving the said legal notice, failed to respond to the same. The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner for offences under Sections and 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the petitioner appealed this Court.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The petitioner passed a comment in the press conference that the Murasoli Trust is functioning in the panchami land. The Respondents Stated that the petitioner was again and again trying to project as if the Murasoli Trust is functioning in a property without any right or title and thereby the petitioner was intentionally causing loss of reputation to the Murasoli Trust in the mind of the general public. In an offence of defamation, the statements have to be tested only from the point of view of a common prudent man, who comes across the defamatory statements made. Even if the petitioner thinks that there was no imputation and that he had merely put a question, such statements will be understood by others as if the petitioner is repeatedly questioning the right and title of the property, over which, the Murasoli Trust is functioning and he also wants to drive home the point that it is functioning in the panchami land. That is how the respondent has understood the statements made by the petitioner and even in the complaint, the allegations have been made to the effect that many others had understood it in the same manner and started making enquiries with the respondent. The petitioner made statements during a press meet and they were also published in the newspapers the next day. Hence, there is no difficulty in rendering a finding that the second limb of the ingredients under Section 499 of the IPC is also satisfied.The respondent has taken a very specific stand that the complaint was given against the petitioner to address the legal injury of reputation suffered by the respondent. To substantiate the same, necessary allegations have also been made in the complaint touching upon the intention and motive of the petitioner in making such statements. The Court did not inclined to quash the impugned proceedings at this stage.

Conclusion:

The Court directed the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge/ Additional Special Court for Trail of cases related to Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai to dispose of C.C.No.47 of 2021 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Petitioner can raise all the grounds before the Trail Court and the same will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. The observations, if any, contained in this order will not have any bearing on the Trial Court.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement