40 Supreme Court Civil Law Judgments Of 2019

1. Undivided Share In Joint Family Can Be Disposed By Will As Per Sec.30 Hindu Succession Act The undivided interest of a Hindu in a joint family property can be disposed of by Will as per Section 30 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, held the Supreme Court while dismissing appeals from a partition suit. "Section 30 of the Act, permits the disposition by way of Will of a male Hindu in a Mitakshara coparcenary property", observed the bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi in the case(Case : Radhamma and others v Muddukrishna and others, Civil Appeal No. 7092/10, decided on 23.01.2019)2. Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant RelationshipThe Supreme Court observed that mere agreement to sell the property of the landlord to the tenant would not result in termination of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties unless there is a stipulation in the agreement itself to that effect.(Case : Dr H K Sharma v Shri Ram Lal, Civil Appeal No.1237-1238/2019, decided on 28.01.2019)3. Decree Passed On Plaintiff's Evidence Without Defendant's Appearance At Trial Is Ex-Parte DecreeThe Supreme Court has held that a decree passed after taking plaintiff's evidence, without the appearance of defendant at the trial stage, is an ex-parte decree, which could be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The bench of Justice A M Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari passed the order in the case , which was an appeal against a High Court judgment, which set aside a preliminary decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.(Case : G.Ratna Raj by LRs vs Sri Muthukumaraswamy Permanent Fund Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 2582-2583/2019, decided on 01.02.2019)4. Second Appeal: Obligatory For HC To Frame Substantial Question Of Law Even If Lower Courts' Findings Are Perverse Per SeThe Supreme Court has observed that it is obligatory for a High Court, while considering a Second Appeal, to frame substantial question of law in second appeal even if lower courts' findings are perverse per se. The bench comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Ajay Rastogi set aside a Kerala High Court order, on the ground that it decided the Second Appeal without formulating any substantial question of law.(Case : Sreedevi & Ors v Sarojam & Ors, Civil Appeal No.1301/2019, decided on 30.01.2019)Good & Bad : 50 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2019 5. Irregularity In Local Commissioner's Report Not A Ground To Dismiss The SuitThe Supreme Court has observed that a civil suit could not be dismissed merely for some irregularity in the report of the Local Commissioner appointed for local investigation.The issue before the Apex Court in the appeal filed by plaintiff (Ram Lal vs. Salig Ram) was whether was justified in setting aside the decree of First Appellate Court on the ground that the Local Commissioner had not carried out demarcation in accordance with the applicable instructions? The bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari noted that the Local Commissioner omitted to scrupulously follow the applicable instructions for carrying out such demarcation and particularly omitted to fix three reference points on different sides of the land in question. But the court disapproved the dismissal of the suit by the High Court and observed that where the Court is disssatisfied with the proceedings of such a Local Commissioner, it could direct such further inquiry to be made as considered fit.(Case : Ram Lal and others v Salig Ram and others, Civil Appeal No. 8285/2009, decided on 04.01.2019)6. Revenue Record Entries Can Be Challenged On The Ground That It Was Made Fraudulently Or SurreptitiouslyThe Supreme Court has reiterated that the entries in the revenue records can be challenged on the ground that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously.(Case : Dharam Singh v Prem Singh, Civil Appeal No. 516/2009, decided on 05.02.2019) 7. Suit In Respect To Properties Situated In Jurisdiction Of Different Courts Can Be Instituted In One Of Those CourtsThe Supreme Court has observed that, a suit in respect to immovable property or properties situate in jurisdiction of different courts may be instituted in any court within whose local limits of jurisdiction, any portion of the property or one or more properties may be situated. The bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph observed that interpretation of word "portion of the property" in Section 17 CPC cannot only be understood in a limited and restrictive sense of being portion of one property situated in jurisdiction of two courts.(Case : Shivnarayan (D) by LRs v Maniklal (D) by LRs, Civil Appeal 1052/2019, decided on 06.02.2016)8. Section 38 Specific Relief Act: Plaintiff Has To Prove His Actual Possession On The Date Of Filing The SuitThe Supreme Court has observed that in a suit filed under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, permanent injunction can be granted only to a person who is in ...

40 Supreme Court Civil Law Judgments Of 2019

Live Law Research Team

Tags