Disputes relating to ownership and possession

In an action for recovery of possession of immovable property, or for protecting possession thereof, upon the legal title to the property being established, the possession or occupation of the property by a person other than the holder of the legal title will be presumed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title, and it will be for the person resisting a claim for recovery of possession or claiming a right to continue in possession, to establish that he has such a right. To put it differently, wherever pleadings and documents establish title to a particular property and possession is in question, it will be for the person in possession to give sufficiently detailed pleadings, particulars and documents to support his claim in order to continue in possession. It would be imperative that one who claims possession must give the following :
(a) Who is or are the owner or owners of the property;
(b) Title of the property;
(c) Who is in possession of the title documents;
(d) Identity of the claimant or claimants to possession;
(e) The date of entry into possession;
(f) How he came into possession whether he purchased the property or inherited or got the same in gift or by any other method;
(g) In case he purchased the property, what is the consideration; if he has taken it on rent, how much is the rent, license fee or lease amount;
(h) If taken on rent, license fee or lease then insist on rent deed, license deed or lease deed;
(i) Who are the persons in possession/occupation or otherwise living with him, in what capacity; as family members, friends or servants etc.,
(j) Subsequent conduct, i.e., any event which might have extinguished his entitlement to possession or caused shift therein; and
(k) Basis of his claim not to deliver possession but continue in possession.

Supreme Court on Tenancy Disputes

‘It is a matter of common knowledge that lakhs of flats and houses are kept locked for years, particularly in big cities and metropolitan cities, because the owners are not certain that even after expiry of lease or licence period, the house, flat or the apartment would be vacated.’ It is remark of  the apex court  in Rameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi decided on 4/7/2011.
Speaking for the bench, Justice Dalveer Bhandari said: ‘It takes decades for the final determination of the controversy and the wrongdoers (unscrupulous litigants) are never punished. Pragmatic approach of the courts would partly solve the housing problem of this country.’
The court made the observation while dismissing an appeal by Rameshwari Devi and others staking claim over the property of Nirmala Devi and others of a colony in south Delhi. Describing the appellant as ‘unscrupulous litigants’, the court imposed a cost of Rs.2 lakh on them.

The court said the situation has come to such a pass because going by cost (risk)-benefit ratio, a person engaged in frivolous litigation finds it profitable in procrastinating the litigation.
The deceitful acts of such litigants get aided by the reluctance of the courts to ‘order restitution and actual costs incurred by the other side’, the apex court observed.
The Supreme Court remarked that ‘Unfortunately, our courts are flooded with these cases because there is an inherent profit for the wrongdoers in our system’ .... It is happening because it is the general impression that even if ultimately an unauthorised person is thrown out of the premises, the court would not ordinarily punish the unauthorised person by awarding realistic and actual mesne (average) profits, imposing costs and ordering prosecution.’
Asking the civil courts not to grant ex-parte injunctions without hearing the other side, the judgment said that even if injunction had to be granted, it should be time-bound and for a short period.
In para 52 of the judgment the apex court issued following commandants that the trial courts in civil matters must follow in dealing with such cases:

"52.    The  main  question   which  arises  for  our  consideration   is whether  the  prevailing delay in  civil  litigation  can  be curbed?

In   our   considered   opinion   the   existing   system   can   be drastically   changed   or   improved   if   the   following   steps   are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials-

   A.    Pleadings   are   foundation   of   the   claims   of parties.     Civil   litigation   is   largely   based   on
documents.     It   is   the   bounden   duty   and  obligation   of   the   trial   judge   to   carefully scrutinize,  check  and verify the pleadings  and   the documents filed by the parties.   This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.
B.    The   Court   should   resort   to   discovery   and production   of   documents   and   interrogatories
at   the   earliest   according   to   the   object   of   the  Code.  If this exercise is carefully carried out, it
would   focus   the   controversies   involved   in   the  case and help the court in arriving at truth of  the matter and doing substantial justice.
C.    Imposition   of   actual,   realistic   or   proper   costs  and   or   ordering   prosecution   would   go   a   long  way in controlling the tendency of introducing  false   pleadings   and   forged   and   fabricated documents   by   the   litigants.     Imposition   of  heavy   costs   would   also   control   unnecessary
 adjournments   by   the   parties.       In   appropriate prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to
 maintain   purity   and   sanctity   of   judicial   proceedings.
D.    The  Court  must adopt  realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits.  The Court
 must   carefully   keep   in   view   the   ground  realities while granting mesne profits.
E.    The   courts   should   be   extremely   careful   and  cautious   in   granting   ex-parte   ad   interim
 injunctions   or   stay   orders.     Ordinarily   short notice   should   be   issued   to   the   defendants   or
respondents   and  only  after   hearing   concerned  parties appropriate orders should be passed.
F.    Litigants   who   obtained   ex-parte   ad   interim  injunction   on   the   strength   of   false   pleadings  and   forged   documents   should   be   adequately  punished.   No one should be allowed to abuse
the process of the court.
G.    The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic   manner   in   order   to   do   real   and
substantial justice.
H.    Every   case   emanates   from   a   human   or   a commercial problem and the Court must make
serious   endeavour   to   resolve   the   problem  within the framework of law and in accordance
  with   the   well   settled   principles   of   law   and  justice. 

I.    If   in   a   given   case,   ex   parte   injunction   is  granted,  then  the  said application for grant of
  injunction   should   be   disposed   of   on   merits,  after   hearing   both   sides   as   expeditiously   as
  may be possible on a priority basis and undue   adjournments should be avoided.

  J.    At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should   prepare   complete   schedule   and   fix dates   for   all   the   stages   of   the   suit,   right   from filing         of         the         written         statement         till
 pronouncement   of   judgment   and   the   courts should   strictly   adhere   to   the   said   dates   and  the   said   time   table   as   far   as   possible.     If   any  interlocutory application is filed then the same
be   disposed   of   in   between   the   said   dates   of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the
date   fixed   for   the   main   suit   may   not   be disturbed."


The court  said that the imposition of ‘actual, realistic or proper cost and ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants’ and thus save the ‘scarce and valuable time’ of the court.

Electricity theft- criminal and civil liability

Electricity Act, 2003 – S. 127 – Theft of electricity – Even if final report is submitted in criminal case, Consumer still liable for payment of dues for alleged illegal use - 2010 (4) AWC 4074

Development charges

In absence of rules regulations or bylaws , Development Authority can not demand development charges - 2010 (4) AWC 3767

घरेलू नौकर का सत्यापन

?kjsyw ukSdj ds lR;kiu dk izk:i] tuin y[kuÅ

Hkkx&1

ukSdj dk QksVks

1& ukSdj dk uke ¼mfQZ;r lfgr ;fn dksbZ gks½&

2& firk dk uke&

3& ekrk dk uke&

4& tUe frfFk@LFkku&

5& Hkk"kk&

6& LFkk;h irk&

xkao& iksLV vkfQl& Fkkuk&

ftyk& ns'k& VsyhQksu uEcj&

7& igpku i= dh foLr`r tkudkjh ¼jk'ku dkMZ@Mªkbfoax ykbZlsal@pquko igpku i= bR;kfn½&

8& uke@irk ljiap&

9& LFkkuh; irk&

10& y[kuÅ esa iwoZ ekfyd dk uke o irk&

VsyhQksu uEcj&

11& fdl frfFk ls dk;Zjr Fks&

&&2

&&2&&

12& fdl ?kjsyw dk;Z esa n{k gS&

¼1½ [kkuk idkuk

¼2½ lkQ&lQkbZ

¼3½ ckgjh dk;Z

¼4½ esgekuksa dh ns[k&js[k

¼5½ Qksu dkWYl mBkuk

¼6½ vU;

13& ?kjsyw ukSdj dk fooj.k

¼1½ yEckbZ ¼2½ dkBh

¼3½ vka[k ¼4½ cky

¼5½ jax ¼6½ 'kjhj ij fu'kku

¼7½ vU; igpku ds fu'kku ¼8½ viaxrk

¼9½ rfd;k dyke ¼10½'kkjhfjd cukoV

¼11½ys[ku 'kSyh

14& ukSdj dk gLrk{kj&

15&LFkkuh; fj'rsnkj ,oa nksLr dk uke o irk&

16& ftlus ifjp; djk;k gks

uke@irk@VsyhQksu uEcj&

17& ekfyd dh foLr`r tkudkjh

uke@irk@VsyhQksu uEcj

ekfyd dk gLrk{kj

fnukad&

&&3

&&3&&

Hkkx&2

vaxqy Nki&ukSdj

¼ekfyd dks LosPNk ls fn;k x;k½

¼ekfyd }kjk gh Hkjk tk;½

1& iwjk uke ¼mfQZ;r lfgr½&

2& firk ;k ifr dk uke&

3& irk&

4& iqfyl LVs'ku dk uke&

ukSdj dk fQaxj fizUV&

nkfguk gkFk
vaxwBk	rtZuh vaxqyh	chp okyh vaxyh	vaxwBh okyh vaxqyh	dkuh vaxqyh
cka;k gkFk
dkuh vaxqyh	vaxwBh okyh vaxqyh	chp okyh vaxyh	rtZuh vaxqyh	vaxwBk

gLrk{kj ukSdj

gLrk{kj efyd

&&4

&&4&&

Hkkx&3

nkfgus gkFk dh Nki ¼ukSdj½

¼ekfyd dks LosPNk ls fn;k x;k½

¼ekfyd }kjk gh Hkjk tk;½

gLrk{kj ukSdj

gLrk{kj ekfyd

Hkkx&4

ikorh ¼izkfIr Lohd`fr½

Jh@Jherh---------------------------------------------------------------------------iq= Jh ---------------------------------------------------------------------

fuoklh--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Qksu ua0------------------------------

ukSdjh fn;s tkus dh lwpuk---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jh-------------------------------------------------------------------------------iq=---------------------------------------------------------------ls izkIr fd;kA

fnukad-----------------------------------------------th0Mh0ua0--------------------------------------izkIrdrkZ ds gLrk{kj uke o in

Fkkus dh eqgj

जन्मतिथि परिवर्तन

उच्चतम न्यायलय ने पंजाब हरयाणा हाई कोर्ट बनाम मेघराज गर्ग में दिनांक २० मई, २०१० को यह निर्णय दिया है कि नौकरी पाने के बाद यदि विद्यालय प्रमाण पत्र में जन्मतिथि संशोधित की जाती है तो सरकार या सम्बंधित विभाग उस संशोधित जन्मतिथि के अनुसार सेवा पुस्तिका में संशोधन करने के लिए बाध्य नहीं है।
इस मामले में एक न्यायिक अधिकारी ने नौकरी पाने के दस साल बाद विश्वविद्यालय के प्रमाण पत्र में अपनी जन्मतिथि बदलवाया था और राज्य सरकार तथा उच्च न्यायलय प्रशासन से यह अनुरोध किया था कि प्रमाणपत्र में संशोधित जन्मतिथि के अनुरूप उसकी सेवा पुस्तिका में भी जन्मतिथि संशोधित किया जाए ।
प्रार्थना पत्र अस्वीकार होने पर उसने दीवानी वाद प्रस्तुत किया जिसे अधीनस्थ न्यायलय तथा उच्च न्यायलय ने भी उसके पक्ष में डिक्री करते हुए सेवा पुस्तिका में जन्म तिथि संशोधित करने का आदेश पारित किया था। उच्चतम न्यायलय ने उच्च न्यायलय प्रशासन की अपील मंजूर करते हुए वाद को अस्वीकार एवं डिक्री को अपास्त कर दिया।

Compounding of offences u/s 138, NI Act

In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2010, Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., decided on 03/05/2010 , the Supreme Court observed that the interests of justice would indeed be better served if parties resorted to compounding as a method to resolve their disputes at an early stage instead of engaging in protracted litigation before several forums, thereby causing undue delay, expenditure and strain on part of the judicial system. This is clearly a situation that is causing some concern, since Section 147 of the Act does not prescribe as to what stage is appropriate for compounding the offence and whether the same can be done at the instance of the complainant or with the leave of the court.

With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the Attorney General requested to the Supreme Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, the Supreme Court directed the following guidelines to be followed:-

THE GUIDELINES

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.

The supreme Court further directed that :

(e) any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before Magistrate's Court or a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Attorney General's suggestions for controlling the filing of multiple complaints that are relatable to the same transaction. It was submitted that complaints are being increasingly filed in multiple jurisdictions in a vexatious manner which causes tremendous harassment and prejudice to the drawers of the cheque. For instance, in the same transaction pertaining to a loan taken on an installment basis to be repaid in equate monthly installments, several cheques are taken which are dated for each monthly installment and upon the dishonor of each of such cheques, different complaints are being filed in different courts which may also have jurisdiction in relation to the complaint. In light of this submission, we direct that it should be mandatory for the complainant to disclose that no other complaint has been filed in any other court in respect of the same transaction. Such a disclosure should be made on a sworn affidavit which should accompany the complaint file under Section 200 of the CrPC. If it is found that such multiple complaints have been filed, orders for transfer of the complaint to the first court should be given, generally speaking, by the High Court after imposing heavy costs on the complainant for resorting to such a practice. These directions should be given effect prospectively.

The court said that, “We are also conscious of the view that the judicial endorsement of the above quoted guidelines could be seen as an act of judicial law-making and therefore an intrusion into the legislative domain. It must be kept in mind that Section 147 of the Act does not carry any guidance on how to proceed with the compounding of offences under the Act. We have already explained that the scheme contemplated under Section 320 of the CrPC cannot be followed in the strict sense. In view of the legislative vacuum, we see no hurdle to the endorsement of some suggestions which have been designed to discourage litigants from unduly delaying the composition of the offence in cases involving Section 138 of the Act. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo,valuable time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any Court fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end. Even in the past, this Court has used its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to frame guidelines in relation to subject-matter where there was a legislative vacuum.”