Whether plaintiff seeking protection of his possession should prove his title?

 The ratio of the judgment does not indicate that in every case, where the plaintiff claims to be in settled previous possession of property claiming to protect it, he must prove either his title or his entitlement to be in possession. Ours is a case where the Plaintiff was undisputedly in settled possession of the suit property. It was his case that the owner of the suit property, being his self-acquired property, had put the Plaintiff in possession of the same after evincing intention to make an oral gift in his favour. In pursuance of such delivery of possession, the owner had even applied to the revenue authorities for effecting a mutation in respect of the suit property in favour of the Plaintiff. Ever since the death of the admitted owner of the suit property, the Plaintiff had, in the premises, been in settled physical possession, cultivating the same. He claimed to be entitled to protect his possession from any unauthorised person. On these facts, unless the Defendants show that they were actually in joint physical possession or had the right to be in such possession, the Plaintiff's suit for possession could not have been dismissed. 

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before S.C. Gupte, J.)

Kadar Raju Shaikh  v.  Abbas Pirmohamad Shaikh 

Second Appeal No. 249 of 1993

With

Civil Application No. 1779 of 2016

Decided on November 7, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 4688

Print Page

Under which law eviction suit is to be filed if open plot was let out on which saw mill was constructed?

It is pertinent to note that the definition of expression 'premises' given in the Act clearly indicates that the Act is not applicable to open lands and it applies to the buildings and structures and parts thereof used as separate premises for residence, education, business, trade or storage. However, the Rent Control Order applied to open lands also but by virtue of provisions of Section 58 of the Act, the said Rent Control Order has been repealed and by virtue of the provisions of Section 46 of the Act, the Rent Control Order is applicable only to the suits or proceedings pending on the date of commencement of the Act. Admittedly, on the date of commencement of the Act, no suit or proceeding for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises was pending and, therefore, in my opinion, it is the Transfer of Property Act which would govern the field and would be applicable to the matter in question and as such, the notice to quit issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act determining his tenancy without obtaining prior permission of the Rent Controller cannot be said to be illegal or invalid and, therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial Judge has rightly held so. I, therefore, find no substance in the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the applicant in this regard.

Bombay High Court

Gangdas S/O Moujibhai Patel vs Harshvardhan S/O Balkrushna ... on 14 October, 2002

Equivalent citations: 2003 (4) BomCR 712, 2003 (1) MhLj 203

Print Page

Supreme Court: Court should not deny bail to accused considering documents produced by prosecution in sealed cover

The question as to whether the Court could look

into the documents while considering an application for

bail had arisen for consideration in the very case between

the parties herein in Criminal Appeal No.130/2019

wherein through the judgment dated 05.09.2019 while

considering the matter relating to the order dated

20.08.2019 whereby the High Court had rejected the bail,

this Court had held that it would be open for the Court to

receive the materials/documents collected during the

investigation and peruse the same to satisfy its conscience

that the investigation is proceeding in the right lines and

for the purpose of consideration of grant of

bail/anticipatory bail etc. At the same time, this Court,

had disapproved the manner in which the learned Judge

of the High Court in the said case had verbatim quoted a

note produced by the respondent. If that be the position,

in the instant case, the learned Judge while adverting to

the materials, ought not have recorded a finding based on

the materials produced before him. While the learned

Judge was empowered to look at the materials produced in

a sealed cover to satisfy his judicial conscience, the

learned Judge ought not to have recorded finding based on

the materials produced in a sealed cover. Further while

deciding the same case of the appellant in Crl. Appeal

No.1340 of 2019, after holding so, this Court had

consciously refrained from opening the sealed cover and

perusing the documents lest some observations are made

thereon after perusal of the same, which would prejudice

the accused pre-trial. In that circumstance though it is

held that it would be open for the Court to peruse the

documents, it would be against the concept of fair trial if

in every case the prosecution presents documents in

sealed cover and the findings on the same are recorded as

if the offence is committed and the same is treated as

having a bearing for denial or grant of bail.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1831/2019)

P. Chidambaram Vs  Directorate of Enforcement 

A.S. Bopanna,J.

Dated:December 04, 2019

Print Page

Bom HC: Conduct of search of house by police in violation of provisions of CRPC amounts to breach of right to privacy

 In the case reported as State v. Rehman (AIR

1960 SC 210) it is laid down by the Apex Court that as

search is a process exceedingly arbitrary in character,

stringent statutory conditions are imposed on the exercise

of the power. The provision of section 165 of the Cr.P.C. is

enacted to enable police to take search when there is

urgency and when it is not permissible to follow lengthy

process, securing search warrant from Magistrate. In the

case of Rehman (cited supra) the Apex Court has laid

down that as the provision of section 165(1) of the Cr.P.C.

is mandatory in nature, it should be strictly followed.

Thus, before entering a house, investigating officer has to

specify in writing the things for which search is to be

made and also the ground of his belief that such things

would be found in the house which is to be searched. In

view of the wording of the provision it can be said that

the provision is not restricted to search of what is stolen

or believed to be stolen and it permits the police officer to

make search for anything necessary for the purposes of

investigation into any offence. Thus, on one hand the

provision enables police to take search of the house for

investigation of any crime, on the other, it becomes

mandatory for police to record reasons as the first step

before entering the house.

16) Sub section (2) of section 165 of the Cr.P.C.

shows that police officer taking action should be either

police officer in charge of the police station or the

investigating officer. It can be said that in cases of

urgency, the investigating officer may depute his

subordinate but in view of the provision of section 165(1)

of the Cr.P.C. such deputation must be in writing. That is

also made clear in section 165(3) of the Cr.P.C.

17) The provision of section 165 of the Cr.P.C.

shows that it applies to searches when offence is

committed under general Act like Indian Penal Code, or

special Acts or also local Acts provided that the conditions

given in section 165 of the Cr.P.C. are satisfied. This Court

has gone through the provisions of the Arms Act 1959 as

the respondents have come with the defence that there

was specific secret information against the petitioner that

he was in possession of firearm illegally. There is nothing

in the Arms Act and the Rules framed under that Act to

enable police to take such search by ignoring the

provision of section 165 of the Cr.P.C. This Court has also

gone through the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act

to ascertain the powers of police officer and this Act also

does not show that police can bypass the provision of

section 165 of the Cr.P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

Criminal Writ Petition No.25 of 2019

Dnyaneshwar s/o Kachru Todmal,  Vs  The State of Maharashtra,

Coram: T.V. NALAWADE &

S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

Judgment pronounced on : 29 November, 2019

JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):

Print Page