Thursday 30 April 2020

Appeal cannot be Disposed Of without Trial Court Record - Supreme Court




Appeal cannot be disposed of without Trial Court record: SC

0
3579
Advertisement

The Supreme Court recently set aside a judgment of Delhi High Court which disposed of a criminal appeal without the record of the trial court before it.

The bench considering an appeal against a Delhi High Court order which upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on a man under Sections 498A and 304 IPC by the trial court without the record of the trial court, which was lost during the pendency of the appeal before it.

One of the issue raised in the appeal was whether the order of High Court disposing of the criminal appeal in the absence of original record can be held sustainable in the eyes of law. In this regard, the bench observed:

The High Court has disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant herein without the record of the trial court, which was lost during the pendency of the appeal before it.

The bench then remanded the matter back to the High Court for hearing of the appeals afresh after reconstruction of the record of the trial court.

Source : Livelaw.com

Wednesday 29 April 2020

NOTES ON LEASES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (S 105-117 OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT Definition ( S.105)




Saturday, 2 June 2018

NOTES ON LEASES OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

(S 105-117 OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT
Definition( S.105)
A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property for a certain time,or in perpetuity,in consideration of price paid or promised or money,a share of crop, service or any other thing of value to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions, to the transferor by transferee,who accepts the transfer on such terms.
In the case of a lease, the price is called the premium,and the money,share,service or other thing to be rendered is called the rent;the transferor is called the lessor,and the transferee is called the lessee.

The following are essential elements of a lease:-
1) The lessor-He must be competent to contract and he must have title or authority.
2) The lessee- He also must also be competent to contract at the date of execution of the lease. A sale or a mortgage to a minor is valid. But a lease to a minor is void, as the lease is to be executed both by the lessor and the lessee. (S 107)
3) The subject matter of the lease must be immovable property.
4)There must be transfer of a right to enjoy such property.
5) Duration of lease- A lease must be made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity.
6) Consideration- Like every agreement,a lease must have consideration, which may be premium plus rent,as well as premium alone or rent alone.
7) The lessee must accept the transfer.
8) It must be in mode indicated by S 107.

Read important judgment on lease:
Click here
Difference between agreement to lease and lease:-
An agreement to lease does not give rise to right in rem. It creates only a personal obligation, which may be enforced by a suit for specific performance under specific relief Act, provided that agreement to lease is in writing and is accompanied by delivery of possession. In this respect,it materially differs from an agreement to sell. The latter agreement may be specifically enforced even if oral and unaccompanied by delivery of possession;but not in respect of agreement to lease. A lease does but an agreement for lease does not establish the legal relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This is so, because a lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy property, whereas an agreement to lease is not.
Difference between lease and licence:-
Ordinarily a lease is a grant of property, for a time by one who has a greater interest in the property, the consideration being usually the payment of rent. A licence ,on the other hand is governed by Indian easement Act, and is a permission to do some act which without such permission,would be unlawful. Both have certain elements in common,but the following are the points of difference between the two:
1) In a lease there is a transfer of an interest in the immovable property. In the case of a license, there is no transfer of interest, although the licensee acquires a right to occupy the property.
For determining whether an interest in land is transferred or not,the main test is the delivery of exclusive possession. If the exclusive possession is not with the grantee,and the subject matter is in control and possession of grantor, then it is a license and not a lease. It is always open to a licensor to have access to property, possession being with him,and not transferred to the licensee.
2)If during the continuance of the lease,any accretion is made to the property,such accretion is deemed to be comprised in the lease.A licensee has no property in the land,and therefore he acquires no right by accretion.
3) A lease is transferable and heritable. A licence being purely a personal privilege is non-transferable and non- heritable.
An exception is made in the case of a licence to attend a place of public entertainment,which can be transferred by licensee,unless a different intention is expressed or necessarily implied(S 56 of Indian easement Act).
4) A lease can be terminated by forfeiture. There is no corresponding provision in the case of licence in the Indian easement Act.
5) A lease can be terminated only in eight different ways as mentioned S 111 of transfer of property Act. A licence can be revoked at pleasure,unless(a) it is coupled with transfer of property and such transfer is in force;or (b) licensee acting upon the licence has executed a work of permanent character and incurred expenses in the execution. Therefore, unlike a lessee, a licensee is not entitled to a notice to quit before eviction.
6) Lessee's interest is not liable to be defeated by subsequent transfer of leased property as per S 109 of Transfer of property Act. A licence is determined when the grantor makes an assignment of subject matter of licence as per S 59 of Indian easement Act.
7) A lessee is entitled to maintain a suit in his own name against trespassers and strangers. A licence does not create an interest in property in favour of licensee and therefore,he is not entitled to maintain suits in his own name.
8) Death of either party does not affect a lease,whereas a licence is terminated in such circumstances.

Read important judgments on license:
Click here
Leases how made (S 107)
1) A lease of immovable property can be made from year to year,or for any term exceeding one year,or reserving yearly rent only by a registered instrument.
2) In any other case,either by a registered instrument,or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession.
Duration and termination of lease S 106:-
1) A lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing purposes is deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by six months notice.
2) A lease of immovable property for any other purpose is deemed to be a lease from month to month terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by fifteen days notice.
S 106 also clarified that the period of notice mentioned above commences from date of receipt of notice. It is also provided that even if a short period is mentioned in the notice,as long as the suit or proceeding is filed after expiry of period stipulated above,the notice would not be invalid.
The above statutory presumption as to duration arise only when there is no agreement between the parties or a local law or usage to the contrary.

Read important judgments on S 106 of Transfer of property Act
Click here
Requisites of notice under S 106 of transfer of property Act.
1)Every notice under S 106 must be in writing, signed by or on behalf of person giving it,
2) Sent by post or delivered personally to lessee,or
3) affixed to conspicuous part of property.
Waiver of notice to quit as per S 113 of Transfer of property Act
Notice to quit is deemed to have been waived
1) when with the express or implied consent of the person to whom it is given,
2) the person giving it does an act showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting.
Rights and liabilities of lessor [S 108(a) to (c)]
1) the lessor is bound to disclose to the lessee, any material defect in the property with reference to its intended use which the former is and latter is not aware, and which the latter could not with ordinary care discover.{S 108(a)}.
A defect in the lesser's title can not be said to be material defect in the property within the meaning of this clause.
2) the lessor is bound on the lessee's request, to put him in possession of the property.{S 108(b)}
3) The lessor is also deemed to contract with the lessee that if the latter pays the rent reserved by the lease and performs the contract binding on the lessee,he may hold the property(during the time limited by the lease) without interruption: S 108(c).
This covenant is called a covenant for quiet enjoyment, and is absolute and unconditional. It protects the lessee against the disturbance of his possession by lessor or by person claiming under the lessor, but not against any disturbance by a trespasser.
Rights of lessee
1) If during the continuance of the lease, any accession is made to property, such accession is deemed to be comprised in lease.
2) If by fire, tempest or flood, or violence of an army or of mob or other irresistible force, any material part of the property is wholly destroyed or rendered substantially and permanently unfit for the purpose for which it was let,at the option of the lessee,the lease becomes void.(However,if injury is occasioned by the wrongful act or default of lessee,he is not entitled to avail himself of this benefit).
3) If the lessor neglects to make within a reasonable time after notice,any repairs which he is bound to make to the property, the lessee may make the same himself, and deduct the expense of such repairs with interest from rent or otherwise recover it from the lessor.
4) If the lessor neglects to make any payment which he is bound to make,and which,if not made by him,is recoverable from the lessee or against the property,the lessee may make such payment himself and deduct it with interest from rent or otherwise recover it from the lessor.
5) the lessee may even after the termination of the lease, remove at any time whilst he is in possession of the property leased, all things which he has attached to the earth, provided he leaves the property in the state in which he received it.
6) When a lease of an uncertain duration determines by any means except due to fault of lessee,he or his legal representative is entitled to all the crops planted or sown by the lessee and growing upon the property when the lease determines, and to free ingress and egress to gather and carry them.
7) The lessee may transfer absolutely or by way of mortgage or sub-lease,the whole or any part of his interest in the property and any transferee of such interest or part may again transfer it. In such a case the lessee does not by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities attaching to the lease.
Liabilities of lessee
1) the lessee must disclose to lessor any fact which materially increases the value of such interest.
2) lessee must pay the premium and rent to lessor at proper time and place.
3) The lessee must keep the property in good condition. (reasonable wear and tear excepted).
4) If lessee becomes aware of any encroachment on the property or any proceeding to recover the property, he must inform the lessor about the same with reasonable diligence.
5) The lessee must use the property as a man of ordinary prudence would use his own, but he cannot use it for any other purpose or commit any act which may destroy or permanently injure the property.
6) Without the lessor's consent, the lessee can not erect any permanent structure on the property.
7) When the lease is over, the lessee must put the lessor in possession of the property.
Determination of lease
A lease terminates in eight ways:
1) by efflux of time.
2) If the duration of the lease is until the happening of some event-when that event happens.
Thus for instance,if a lease is for twenty years and at the same time made conditional upon life of lessee, the lease terminates on the death lessee, even if death of lessee takes place within stipulated period of twenty years; if the lessee does not die within this period lease terminates at the end of the period.
3)If the lessor's interest in the property is to terminate on the happening of some event- when that event happens.
This clause operates in cases where the lessor has only limited interest or limited power to grant a lease. Thus it has been held that a lease by hindu widow who is entitled only to a life-estate terminates on her death.
4) Merger that is when the interest of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property becomes vested at the same time in one person in same right.
Merger may take place either by act of parties or by operation of law.
5) By express surrender by lessee.
6) By implied surrender by lessee.
Thus if a lessee accepts from his lessor a new lease of leased property to take effect during the continuance of existing lease, this is an implied surrender of former lease, and such lease terminates thereupon.
7) By forfeiture
8) on the expiry of a notice to terminate the lease,or to quit (or of intention to quit) the property leased duly given by one party to the other.
A valid notice must satisfy the following three requisites Viz-
A) It must expressly convey the intention to terminate the tenancy.
B) It must specify the date on which the tenancy is to expire.
C) It must be unconditional. Thus a notice given by a tenant that he will quit when he gets another suitable accommodation is not valid.

Whether a Person who Contributed Money in Purchase of the Immovable Property can Retain its Possession




Whether a person who has contributed money in the purchase of the immovable property can retain its possession?

A contributor to the purchase consideration for immovable property, only has rights if any, to recover the said purchase consideration from the purchaser and does not acquire any rights in the immovable property or any right to retain possession thereof. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 2585/2012

Decided On: 24.01.2013

 K.L. Garg   Vs.  Rajesh Garg and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/0321/2013



1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of possession of a portion consisting of two bedrooms, common drawing-dining, kitchen and bathroom of flat on the second floor of property No. 21/13, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and for mesne profits/damages for use and occupation. It is the case of the plaintiff, that he is the owner of the said flat vide registered Sale Deed dated 18th October, 2004 copy whereof is filed along with the plaint; that the defendants no. 1 to 4 are the son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff on account of the said relationship had allowed the defendants to reside with him in the said flat; however the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants has soured and the plaintiff does not want the defendants to reside in his flat and though called upon the defendants to vacate the same, the defendants failed to do so. Summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief to restrain the defendants from parting with the possession of the said flat to any other person were issued though no interim relief granted.

2. The defendants have filed the written statement pleading, that the suit has been filed merely to harass them; that no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff against the defendants; that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concocted the story of the defendants ill treating or harassing the plaintiff; that the defendants no. 1 and 2 had contributed to the purchase consideration of the flat and the defendant no. 1 also used to pay the electricity bills of the said flat; that the plaintiff is a habitual litigant and had also lodged a complaint against another son namely Shri Pankaj Garg and with whom he subsequently compromised; that similarly earlier disputes had arisen between the plaintiff and the defendants and which have subsequently been compromised; that the suit is undervalued; that in fact the defendants had started living in the flat only at the instance of the plaintiff and that the defendants are looking after and caring for the plaintiff. The defendants however do not dispute the receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff demanding possession but allege the same to be false.

3. The suit was listed on 14th January, 2013 when finding that the defence of the defendants in the written statement of having contributed to the purchase consideration of the said flat while admitting the Title Deed with respect thereto to be in the name of the plaintiff only did not constitute any defence in law to the claim of the plaintiff for possession, the counsel for the defendants was asked to argue. On his request the matter was adjourned to today.

4. The counsel for the defendants, who states that he is the new counsel though has filed his Vakalatnama, has argued that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has drawn attention to para 4 of the plaint and contended that the plaintiff has falsely stated that the defendants had harassed the deceased wife of the plaintiff. It is argued that the relationship of the defendants with the deceased wife of the plaintiff, being the mother of the defendant no. 1 and mother-in-law of the defendant no. 2 was very good.

5. It has been enquired from the counsel for the defendants as to whether the said argument even if were to be accepted constitutes a defence to a suit for possession; a decree for suit for possession is not a discretionary one; if the plaintiff is found entitled to possession of a property, relief cannot be denied to him/her merely because he may have on some other aspects not relatable to possession, lied.

6. No reply is forthcoming.

7. This argument, also does not constitute any defence to the claim for possession.

8. Though the defendants have not filed any documents whatsoever, the counsel for the defendants has during the course of hearing handed over photocopy of a letter purported to be written by the plaintiff to the Editor of Veer Arjun Newspaper on 19th December, 2003 withdrawing the earlier advertisement disinheriting the defendants and stating "Shri Rajesh Garg and my grand children has full legal rights for moveable/immoveable property stands in my name i.e. K.L. Garg". A right in the property, on the basis of the said document is claimed.

9. The said document is taken on record.

10. Even though the procedure adopted by the defendants of handing document across the bar is not in consonance with the prescribed procedure but I am afraid even the said document does not show that the defendants have any right to retain possession of the flat aforesaid. All that the said document purports to do is to recall the earlier notice disinheriting the defendants. However, such inheritance can happen only on the demise of the plaintiff and not prior thereto.

11. A contributor to the purchase consideration for immovable property, only has rights if any, to recover the said purchase consideration from the purchaser and does not acquire any rights in the immovable property or any right to retain possession thereof. The only defence thus raised in the written statement is not a material one so as to invite framing of an issue and the plaintiff has become entitled to a decree for possession and mesne profits.

12. The dispute raised in the written statement of under valuation of the suit is a vexatious one, bereft of any particulars. Nothing is stated, as to on the basis of which sale/purchase transaction, the valuation given by the plaintiff is incorrect.

13. Faced with the aforesaid, the counsel for the defendants states that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was entered into between all the family members and the original thereof is in the custody of the plaintiff though a copy thereof is in the custody of the sister of the defendant no. 1 and who is out of station and owing whereto the counsel could not bring the said MoU to the Court today.

14. There is no plea also in the written statement to the said effect.

15. The counsel for the defendants then seeks adjournment by seven days to amend the written statement.

16. The aforesaid request cannot be entertained. Suits cannot be kept pending after they have been heard and to allow parties to amend their pleadings.

17. The suit is thus decreed for possession in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1 and 2 for possession of flat aforesaid on the second floor of property No. 21/13, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. As per Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Chandramaul MANU/SC/0335/1965 : AIR 1966 SC 735 and R.S. Maddanappa Vs. Chandramma MANU/SC/0356/1965 : AIR 1965 SC 1812, a decree for mesne profits follows a decree for possession. However an inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 has to be held to determine the rate of mesne profits. Considering the nature of the dispute, it is not deemed appropriate at this stage to order such inquiry in as much as the suit has been decreed within six months of institution thereof. Liberty is however given to the plaintiff to apply for such inquiry if the defendants no. 1 and 2 resist the execution of the decree. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs equivalent only to court fee of Rs. 25,785/- paid on the plaint. Decree is confined against defendants no. 1 and 2 since the defendants No. 3 and 4 are minors and no steps were taken for appointment of their guardian. The decree sheet be drawn up.

18. The counsel for the defendants at this stage states that he has instructions from the defendants to state that they are willing to give an undertaking to vacate the said flat after the examination of the children (defendants no. 3 and 4) scheduled in March-April, 2013 are over. Liberty is granted to the defendants No. 1 and 2 to file affidavits of undertaking to the said effect and on filing whereof this request shall be considered.

Can Court Recall or Review its Judgment Obtained by Fraud




Can Court Recall/Review it’s Judgment Obtained by Fraud?

0
6955
Advertisement

February 22, 2019

The statutory provisions pertaining to recalling or reviewing of judgment is contained in Section 362 of Code of Civil Procedure and Section 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The provision under Section 362 of CrPC provides for the Court not to alter judgment. Thus, it puts a bar for altering or reviewing of judgment or final order on merits only. The only power given to the Court is to correct any clerical or arithmetical error.

Though the aforesaid provision puts a bar on altering judgment but the Indian Judiciary has time and again reiterated that Court can vacate any judgment or order, if it is proved to have been obtained by fraud.

Hence, in such cases, the intriguing concern that is raised is that if the fraud is played upon the court whether the hands of the court are tight? Whether court cannot take any action? Whether it remains silent spectator in a matter where an order was obtained by playing a patent fraud upon the court? A person impersonate himself and dare to appear before the court with a false identity whether he can be left open?

In the aforementioned circumstances, Section 44 of the Evidence Act comes to rescue. The provision under section 44 of Evidence Act enables a party otherwise bound by a previous adjudication to show that it was not final or binding because it is vitiated by fraud. The provision therefore gives jurisdiction and authority to a court to consider and decide the question whether a prior adjudication is vitiated by fraud[1].

Judiciary on Recalling of Judgment Obtained by Fraud

In order to have a better understanding of the subject it would be relevant to refer to case laws wherein the Supreme Court and High Courts were confronted with the issue of recalling or reviewing of an order obtained by fraud.

Paranjpe Vs. Kanade[2]– In this one of the earlier judgment of the Court on the subject it was ruled that it is always competent to any Court to vacate any judgment or order, if it be proved that such judgment or order was obtained by manifest fraud.

Lakshmi Charan Saha Vs. Nur Ali[3]–  The Court in the case observed that the jurisdiction of the Court in trying a suit [questioning the earlier decision as being vitiated by fraud] was not limited to an investigation merely as to whether the plaintiff was prevented from placing his case properly at the prior trial by the fraud of the defendant. The Court could and must rip up the whole matter for determining whether there had been fraud in the procurement of the decree.

Proof of Fraud

Manindra Nath Mittra Vs. Hari Mondal[4]– The Court explained the elements to be proved before a plea of a prior decision being vitiated by fraud could be upheld. The Court with respect to the question as to what constitutes fraud for which a decree can be set aside, enumerated two propositions. Firstly, it is not permitted to show that the Court (in the former suit) was mistaken, it may be shown that it was misled, in other words where the Court has been intentionally misled by the fraud of a party, and a fraud has been committed upon the Court with the intention to procure its judgment, it will vitiate its judgment. Secondly, a decree cannot be set aside merely on the ground that it has been procured by perjured evidence.

Esmile Uddin Biswas and Anr. Vs. Shajoran Nessa Bewa & Ors.[5]– In this case it was held that it must be shown that fraud was practised in relation to the proceedings in Court and the decree must be shown to have been procured by practising fraud of some sort upon the Court.

Nemchand Tantia Vs. Kishinchand Chellaram (India) Ltd.[6]– In this case it was held that a decree can be re-opened by a new action when the court passing it had been misled by fraud, but it cannot be reopened when the Court is simply mistaken; when the decree was passed by relying on perjured evidence, it cannot be said that the court was misled.

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs & Ors.[7]– The Supreme Court in the case stated that it is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non-est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree — by the first court or by the highest court — has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.

The Court went on to observe that the High Court in that case was totally in error when it stated that there was no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to the Court with a true case and prove it by true evidence and opined that “The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands.”

Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education & Others[8]– The Apex Court reiterated that fraud avoids all judicial acts.

Suppression of a Material Document is Fraud

State of A.P. & Anr. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao[9]– The Supreme Court in the case held that suppression of a material document could also amount to a fraud on the Court. A similar observation was also made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.[10]wherein it was noted that suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. Although, negligence is not fraud, it can be evidence of fraud.

Hamza Haji vs. State of Kerala and Another[11]– The Supreme Court in the case has held that no court will allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud, and no court, by the application of rules of evidence or procedure, can allow its eyes to be closed to the fact that it is being used as an instrument of fraud.

Union of India vs. Ramesh Gandhi[12]– In this case it was held that fraud vitiates everything including judicial acts.

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors.[13] The Supreme Court in the case observed that fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and nonest in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree – by the first court or by the highest court – has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.

A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and Ors.[14]–  The Supreme Court noted in the case that once it is established that the order was obtained by a successful party by practising or playing fraud, it is vitiated. Such order cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with law. It is non- existent and non-est and cannot be allowed to stand.

From the aforesaid judicial dictum it is abundantly clear that a judgment or decree that has been obtained by playing fraud on the court is null and void. Hence, if the Court is not entrusted with the power to recall a judgment obtained by fraud it would amount to the travesty of truth and justice. 

[1] Paranjpe Vs. Kanade [ILR 6 (1882) BOMBAY 148]

[2] ILR 6 (1882) BOMBAY 148

[3] [ ILR (1911)38 Calcutta 936]

[4] [(1919) 24 Calcutta Weekly Notes 133]

[5] 132 INDIAN CASES 897

[6] (1959)63 Calcutta Weekly Notes 776

[7] (1993) Supp. 3 SCR 422

[8] (2003) Supp. 3 SCR 352

[9] (2005) 6 SCC 149

[10] 2005 (7) SCC 605

[11] (2006) 7 SCC 416

[12] 2012 (1) SCC 476

[13] (1994) 1 SCC 1

[14] AIR 2007 SC 1546


Whether The Court Can Execute Injunction Decree Against Some of The Judgment Debtors if One of The JD is Dead

  The 3rd contention that the 1st Judgment Debtor (JD) having died and his LRs having not been brought on record, the Injunctive Decree is n...