Supreme Court Weekly Round Up : June 13 - June 18,2022

Supreme Court Judgements 1. No Need To File Separate Final Decree Proceedings In Partition Suit ; Trial Courts Should Proceed Suo Motu Soon After Passing Preliminary Decree: Supreme Court Case Title: Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan | CA 6406-6407 OF 2010 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 549 The Supreme Court has directed the Trial Courts dealing with partition suits to proceed suo motu with the case soon after passing the preliminary decree. "We direct the Trial Courts to list the matter for taking steps under Order XX Rule 18 of the CPC soon after passing of the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the property, suo motu and without requiring initiation of any separate proceedings.", the bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath observed. Also Read: Long Cohabitation Between Man & Woman Raises Strong Presumption In Favour Of Their Marriage: Supreme Court 2. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC | First Appellate Court Ought To Consider Evidence On Record, In Particular Those Relied Upon By Trial Court: Supreme Court Case Name: Somakka (Dead) By Lrs. v. K.P. Basavaraj (Dead) By Lrs. Citation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 550 The Supreme Court held that, non-consideration of the evidence on record, in particular those relied upon by the Trial Court and not stating the points for determination, by the First Appellant Court would lead to infirmity in its judgment. The Apex Court reiterated that it is the duty of the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal keeping in view the scope and powers conferred to it under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"). A Bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court and reinstated the decree passed by the Trial Court. It noted that the High Court had neither formed the points for determination nor considered the evidence on record, especially those appreciated by the Trial Court. It was of the view that the judgment of the Appellate court should reflect application of mind and record findings with reason in respect of all the issues, along with the contentions raised by the parties. It held that in the present case, the judgment of the High Court being non-compliant with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 was unsustainable in law. 3. Accused Taking Plea Of Self Defence Need Not Prove It Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Case Title: Ex. Ct. Mahadev vs Director General, Border Security Force | CA 2606 of 2012 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 551 The Supreme Court observed that an accused who takes up the plea of self defence need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt and that it would suffice if he could show the preponderance of probabilities. The accused, who was serving in the BSF, had allegedly caused the death of a civilian namely Nandan Deb. General Security Force Court rejected his plea of private defence and held him guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder) and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. Delhi High Court dismissed his appeal and therefore he approached the Apex Court. 4. Court Fees Act - Market Value Does Not Become Decisive Of Valuation Merely Because Litigation Involves Immovable Property: Supreme Court Case Name: Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma And Anr.| Civil Appeal No. 4577 of 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 552 The Supreme Court has held that the nature of relief claimed in a plaint is decisive in the valuation of the suit. Market value does not become decisive of suit valuation merely because immovable property is the subject-matter of litigation. The Apex Court further stated that it is trite law that a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction is not required to be valued at the market value of the property. A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath allowed an appeal assailing the order of the Delhi High Court, which had held that the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 250 for each of the reliefs of mandatory and prohibitory injunction and at Rs. 1 lakh for damages was wholly arbitrary when it is an admitted fact that the value of the property at the time of filing the suit was as high as Rs. 1.8 crores. Supreme Court Updates 1. Supreme Court Issues Notice On Actor Mohd Naseer's Plea Seeking Bail In Chit Fund Scam Case The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on a writ petition preferred by disabled actor Mohd Naseer, seeking bail in the FIR registered against him for allegedly cheating and siphoning of monies in the name of chit fund schemes. 2. Supreme Court Halts Dispossession Of Pujaris For Kalkaji Temple Redevelopment While considering a Special Leave Petition assailing Delhi High Court's...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up : June 13 - June 18,2022

Shruti Kakkar

Tags