Significant Kerala High Court Judgments Of 2020

The Kerala High Court pronounced several significant verdicts in 2020. Here is an annual round-up.Transfer Deed Can Be Declared Void U/s 23 Senior Citizens Act Only If It Expressly Contains Condition To Provide Basic Amenities/Physical Needs To Senior Citizen[Subhashini vs. District Collector]A bench comprising Justices K.Vinod Chandran, VG Arun and TR Ravi held that the condition as required under Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for provision of basic amenities and basic physical needs to a senior citizen has to be expressly stated in the document of transfer, which transfer can only be one by way of gift or which partakes the character of gift or a similar gratuitous transfer. It was further observed that there can be no implied condition to assume jurisdiction under Section 23(1) merely for the reason that the document contains a reservation of life interest. The full bench was answering a reference made in view of conflicting division bench judgments. The bench overruled the view in G S Manju v Gopinathan Pillai which held that the condition to maintain aged parents was implicit in the gift deed executed by them in favour of their child.Sec 57 Of Transfer Of Property Act Permits Court To Declare A Property Free Of Encumbrance Even Against Will Of Encumbrancer[ M P Varghese vs Annamma Yacob & others ]In a significant judgment, Justice Devan Ramachandran of the Kerala High Court explained the procedural mechanism under Section 57 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to lift encumbrance from an immovable property. The Court has clarified that Section 57 of TPA was enacted to assist any party to the sale of an immovable property, which is subject to an encumbrance, to fructify the sale for its fair value.Section 357A(4) Cr.P.C Is A Substantive Provision; Victims Entitled To Compensation Even For Crimes That Occurred Prior To Its Enactment[ District Collector Alappuzha v. District Legal Service Authority, Alappuzha & Ors.]In a landmark judgment by the Kerala High court, the Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled that "By giving the benefit to victims under Section 357A(4) Cr.P.C., for crimes that occurred prior to 31.12.2009, the statutory provision is not given retrospective effect, and instead a prospective benefit is given based on an antecedent fact."A State Running Lottery Has No Right To Interfere With Sale Of Other-State Lotteries[Future Gaming and Hotel Services Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Kerala & Ors.]The rules brought by the Kerala government to regulate sale of other-state lotteries were quashed by the Kerala High Court holding that the state government lacked such a power under the Lotteries(Regulation) Act 1998 which was passed by the Parliament. The judgment delivered by a single bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque observed that "No state can exercise its authority by making Rules in such a way to impact upon authority of other States to organise, conduct and promote a lottery. That power is exclusively given to the Central Government under Section 6(of Lotteries Regulation Act). The Central Government alone has the power to regulate, control and interfere with lotteries, if it is run in violation of law"No Limitation Period For Divorced Wife To Claim Property Entrusted With Husband[ Sheela KK vs N G Suresh ]A 3-judge bench comprising Justices A M Shaffique, Sunil Thomas and P Gopinath held that even after the dissolution of the marriage, the husband will be deemed to hold in trust the properties entrusted with him by the wife before marriage in the form of dowry. It implies that Section 10 of the Limitation Act 1963, which exempts the application of limitation period to suit against trusts and trustees, will continue to apply to such property even after the dissolution of the marriage. Therefore, limitation period will not start running even after the dissolution of marriage with respect to the claim for return of property entrusted with husband or in-laws.POCSO Act : Constitutionality Of Reverse Burden Of Proof Under Sections 29 & 30 Upheld[Justin @ Renjith V. Union of india]A single bench of Justice Sunil Thomas upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 29 and 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act(POCSO Act) which creates a reverse burden of proof on the accused and rejected the arguments that these provisions violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of IndiaNational Lockdown: No Arrests Except Where It Is InevitableA full bench comprising Chief Justice S Manikumar, Justices C K Abdul Rehim and C T Ravikumar in a suo moto case, passed a slew of directives. Taking note of the impact of national lockdown on the workings of the offices of advocates and government law officers and their support staff, the High Court directed that the police should not make arrests, except where it is inevitable. At the same time, the Court said that the police will be at liberty to act in...

Significant Kerala High Court Judgments Of 2020

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags