Monday, 16 July 2018

Whether court permit production of pleadings of earlier litigation as additional evidence?

What has been held in the aforesaid judgments is that if the court finds that the documents sought to be produced in additional evidence are relevant to decide the real issue in controversy and further the court feels that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received and the kinds of documents are such, the authenticity of which cannot be disputed, the same may be allowed to be produced in additional evidence. If the facts of the present case are considered in the light of the judgments, referred to above, the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner by way of additional evidence are none else but the pleadings in the earlier litigation pertaining to the same subject-matter. There is no chance of its fabrication at this stage.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Civil Revision No. 7 of 2009 (O&M)

Decided On: 10.01.2012

 Ram Niwas Vs.  Kalu Ram and another

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Citation: (2012) ILR P&H 63
Print Page

Whether subsequent tenant getting possession from landlord is liable to be evicted in restitution proceeding?

In February 1971 Smt. Jaswant Kaur, Respondent 1 herein, initiated legal proceeding before the Rent Controller for eviction of her tenant, the Appellant herein, and in execution of the ex parte order passed therein obtained possession of the suit premises in October 1971. Immediately thereafter the Appellant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed by the Rent Controller. However, in appeal the ex parte order of eviction was set aside by the Rent Control Tribunal and the proceeding for eviction filed by Respondent 1 was revived. On such revival the Appellant filed an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Rent Controller for restoration of his possession which was allowed by an order dated May 13, 1977 and warrant for possession was issued. Before, however, possession could be taken pursuant thereto, Respondent 2 filed an objection before the Rent Controller contending that in terms of an agreement he had arrived at with Respondent 1 he took possession of the suit premises on May 1, 1973 as a tenant under her. He further contended that he was a bona fide transferee and that he did not know about the earlier eviction proceeding initiated against the erstwhile tenant. Consequently, he contended, he was not liable to be dispossessed pursuant to the warrant of possession.

We are unable to share the view expressed by the High Court as in our considered opinion, the status of a bona fide purchaser in an auction sale in execution of a decree to which he was not a party stands on a distinct and different footing from that of a person who is inducted as a tenant by a decree holder-landlord. A stranger auction-purchaser does not derive his title from either the decree holder or the judgment-debtor and therefore restitution may not be granted against him but a tenant who obtains possession from the decree holder-landlord cannot avail of the same right as his possession as a tenant is derived from the landlord. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3307 of 1983

Decided On: 09.02.1994

 Gurjoginder Singh  Vs.  Jaswant Kaur and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S. Mohan and M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.

Citation: 1994 MHLJ 1510
Print Page

Whether precedent can be distinguished due to single distinguishing feature?

 It is settled position of law that even a single distinguishing feature is sufficient to distinguish a precedent. Besides, precedents are never required to be applied without examination and evaluation of the facts in the context in which they came to be rendered.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition Nos. 704 of 2014 and 6136 of 2016

Decided On: 19.01.2018

 Sayaji  Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
M.S. Sonak, J.

Citation: 2018(3) MHLJ 296
Print Page

Sunday, 15 July 2018

Whether widow is bound to file suit in family court if dispute is relating to business of her husband?

 In the case of Janaki Amma v. Renuka Sadanandan (supra), also on which reliance is placed by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, the suit was between the daughter-in-law and mother-in-law and the transaction took place between them only because of matrimonial relationship as daughter-in-law and mother-in-law, hence it was held that the dispute lies within the jurisdiction of the Family Court.

17. If the entire tenor of the present suit is considered, it goes to show that, except for stating that she being the wife of deceased Ali Asgar Bhanpurwala, she is having the right in the property, there is no other marital dispute involved in the case for the Family Court to decide. The Petitioners herein are also not in any way connected with her in the marital relationship or with her husband but it is a dispute pertaining to the business, of which her husband was a partner and therefore, she is claiming certain rights on the share of her husband in that business.

18. If at all the Petitioners, herein who are the Defendants before the trial Court want to challenge the same, the burden will be upon them to show that she is not legally wedded wife of Ali Asgar Bhanpurwala, but that does not mean that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the suit. The averments made in the plaint are required to be considered for deciding the jurisdiction of the Court and even a cursory glance to the averments made in the present case is more than sufficient to show that the dispute does not pertain between the parties to the marital relationship nor it is arising on the count of any marital relationship but it is arising out of the business relations between late Ali Asgar Bhanpurwala and the present Petitioners. Therefore, in no case Clause (d) of Explanation to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act can be interpreted in such a wider way to hold that whenever any person is claiming a right in the share of the late husband in the business with third party, such dispute will lie in the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Neither the Objects and Reasons of the Act, nor the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the Petitioners supports such proposition, which is too wide to be accepted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 12952 of 2017

Decided On: 31.01.2018

 Quaid Johar Maqbul Hussain Miyajiwala  Vs.  Bismilla Ali Asgar Bhanpurwala and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

Citation: 2018(3) MHLJ 555
Print Page