Sahayata & Sahayata

  Appreciation of Evidence in Civil Cases – A Judicial Guide Understanding how courts evaluate and rely on evidence in civil suits is vital for lawyers and judicial officers alike. It offers a comprehensive judicial guide backed by landmark decisions and legal principles on the appreciation of evidence in civil matters . 🧾 Key Takeaways from the Document 🔹 1. Primacy of Pleadings No evidence can be led without pleadings. If a fact isn't pleaded, it cannot be proved, no matter how strong the evidence. Case law: Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 🔹 2. Burden of Proof & Onus Probandi Initially lies on the plaintiff to prove his case (Sec. 101 Evidence Act), but once both parties have adduced full evidence, the burden becomes immaterial. Case law: Sita Ram Bhau Patil v. Ram Chandra Nago Patil, (1977) 🔹 3. Ex-Parte Evidence Isn’t a Free Pass Even when a suit proceeds ex-parte, the court must critically examine the plaintiff’s evidence . An uno...

The Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 6 March 2025 in Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. V. Rajamani & Anr. , Civil Appeal Nos. 3640–3642 of 2025, with key details: ⚖️ Justice Deferred in Execution: Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Delivery of Possession Against Third Parties 🧾 Case Summary This Supreme Court judgment deals with a long-standing property dispute arising out of a 1980 agreement to sell agricultural land in Tamil Nadu. Despite a decree for specific performance in 1986, the decree-holders (legal heirs of Ayyavoo Udayar) were unable to gain possession for decades due to obstruction by third parties, Rajamani and others. 🏛️ Background In 1980 , Ayyavoo Udayar entered into a sale agreement for ₹67,000 with Ramanujan and Jagadeesan. The vendors failed to execute the sale deed, prompting a specific performance suit (O.S. No. 514/1983) , decreed in 1986 . The respondents (Rajamani & Anr.) , who were not parties to the agreement but were all...

Adverse Inference under Section 114 Evidence Act: Supreme Court Ruling on Lawful Possession and Permanent Injunction 🧑‍⚖️ Case Title: Iqbal Basith & Others v. N. Subbalakshmi & Others 📜 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1725 of 2010 🏛️ Court: Supreme Court of India 🗓️ Date of Judgment: 14 December 2020 👨‍⚖️ Bench: Justices R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha, and Krishna Murari Background: The appellants (plaintiffs) sought a permanent injunction against the respondents to prevent encroachment on property No. 44/6 on J.C. Road, Bangalore. The respondents claimed ownership of a different property (No. 42) 103 feet away. The Trial Court and the High Court dismissed the suit, questioning the appellants' possession and title. Key Legal Issues: Whether lawful possession alone was sufficient for injunction. Whether adverse inference could be drawn for non-deposition of a party. Admissibility of photocopies and old public documents. Supreme Court Find...

Case: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. vs Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 772 | Date: 23 May 2025 Coram: Justices J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan Supreme Court Restores Civil Suit in Land Dispute: Rejection of Plaint Set Aside Introduction: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has allowed the appeal of Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's order that had summarily rejected its plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The apex court reinstated the suit for declaration and possession over a land transaction clouded by alleged misuse of power of attorney and fraudulent sale deeds. Background: Appellant: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. Respondents: Mahaveer Lunia & Others (private respondents) Property in question: 18 bighas 15 biswas of agricultural land in Village Pal, Jodhpur. In 2014, the appellant borrowed ₹7.5 crores from Respondent No. 1 and executed an unregistered agreement to sell and power of attorney in...

Introduction: The Supreme Court of India, in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs. Prakasan & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2025], delivered a landmark verdict on May 23, 2025, ending a decades-long litigation over a small commercial property in Palakkad, Kerala. The ruling underscores the importance of finality in judicial decisions and denounces procedural abuse aimed at frustrating lawful decrees. Key Facts of the Case: In 1996, the original plaintiff, Prakasan, filed a suit for specific performance against Jameela Beevi, based on a sale agreement for a shop property. Despite ex parte and then final decree in the plaintiff's favor in 2003, possession was never handed over due to repeated objections and procedural delays by the legal heirs of the original defendant. One such heir, the appellant Sulthan Said Ibrahim (grandson of Jameela Beevi), filed for deletion of his name from party array in 2012, claiming he was not a legal heir and was instead a tenant. Supreme Cou...

  🧑‍⚖️ Brij Praksh Gupta vs Ashwini Kumar (2020): The Hon'ble Delhi High Court on Scope of Affidavits in Evidence Keywords : CPC Order 18 Rule 4, affidavit-in-evidence, deletion of affidavit, cross-examination, pleadings, civil procedure, mesne profits, legal drafting, Delhi High Court judgment 🔍 Introduction In the landmark case of Brij Praksh Gupta vs Ashwini Kumar , the Delhi High Court clarified the scope and admissibility of affidavits-in-evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Justice Prathiba M. Singh authored this decision on 6th February 2020 , emphasizing that trial courts cannot delete parts of affidavits merely because they allegedly go beyond the pleadings—unless such parts are ex-facie irrelevant or inadmissible . 📂 Case Overview Case Title : Brij Praksh Gupta vs Ashwini Kumar Court : High Court of Delhi Judge : Justice Prathiba M. Singh Decision Date : 6 February 2020 Case No. : CM(M) 650/2019 Subject Matter : Possession, mesn...

  Cheque Bounce, Contradictions & Acquittal: SC Upholds Accused’s Innocence in ₹2 Lakh NI Act Case In a landmark decision reaffirming principles of criminal jurisprudence and statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by Sri Dattatraya , thereby upholding the acquittal of the accused, Sharanappa , in a cheque bounce case involving a sum of ₹2,00,000 . 🏛️ Case Snapshot: Case Title : Sri Dattatraya vs. Sharanappa Judgment Date : 7th August 2024 Bench : Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih Citation : 2024 INSC 586 Provision Involved : Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 📌 Background: The appellant (complainant) claimed to have lent ₹2,00,000 to the respondent (accused) based on a personal acquaintance. A cheque was issued as a guarantee for repayment, along with a signed agreement. The cheque bounced due to “insufficient funds” and a le...

  In a significant judgment reinforcing the right to personal liberty and speedy trial, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to Jitender Dixit @ Bantu in a case registered under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999 . The court observed that nearly nine years of undertrial custody without substantial trial progress was unconstitutional . 🕵️‍♂️ The Case at a Glance: FIR No. 55/2016 , registered under Sections 3(1), 3(4), and 3(5) of MCOCA. Accusations: Member of the “Manoj Morkheri” gang, allegedly involved in a syndicate carrying out extortion, murder, kidnapping, and organized crimes. Dixit was arrested in May 2016 and remained in custody ever since. The trial is still pending , with only 35 out of 60 witnesses examined as of May 2025. 👨‍⚖️ Applicant’s Argument: Advocate Tarun Gahlot argued that: The prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 (Right to Liberty) . There is no evidence of "continuing unlawful activity...

The Hon'ble Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Practice Requirement for Civil Judge Exams Image suggestion : A gavel with the Indian Constitution and a law graduate robe in the background (for professionalism and relevance). Summary of the Judgment: Case: All India Judges Association vs. Union of India & Others Citation: 2025 INSC 735 Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and others Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of India (Original Jurisdiction) Key Highlights: 3-Year Practice Rule Restored: The Supreme Court has restored the requirement of minimum 3 years of legal practice as a mandatory qualification to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) exam. This reverses the earlier decision allowing fresh law graduates to directly apply. Why It Was Restored: Reports from several High Courts indicated poor court handling by fresh graduates. Lack of courtroom exposure led to complaints about temperament and decorum . Legal experience helps judges...

On May 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment affirming that High Courts have the inherent power to quash complaints filed under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, using Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2003). Key Highlights of the Judgment: Incorrect High Court View Corrected: The Court held that the High Court’s view that Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash DV Act proceedings was incorrect. It clarified that High Courts can indeed use inherent powers to quash such cases. Civil Nature Argument Rejected: While proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act are predominantly civil in nature, that alone does not bar the High Court from intervening in cases of abuse of legal process or gross injustice. Caution Advised: The Court emphasized that since the DV Act is a welfare legislation designed to protect women fro...

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 19 मई 2025 को एक ऐतिहासिक निर्णय में स्पष्ट किया कि घरेलू हिंसा अधिनियम, 2005 की धारा 12(1) के तहत दर्ज शिकायतों को हाई कोर्ट अपनी अंतर्निहित शक्तियों के तहत (Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS) रद्द कर सकता है। मुख्य बिंदु: न्यायालय की स्पष्टता: हाई कोर्ट की यह राय कि CrPC की धारा 482 DV Act की धारा 12(1) वाली कार्यवाहियों को रद्द करने के लिए प्रयोग नहीं की जा सकती – गलत मानी गई है । महत्वपूर्ण प्रेक्षण: कोर्ट ने माना कि DV Act की कार्यवाहियाँ भले ही सिविल नेचर की हों, पर यदि न्याय की मंशा से विपरीत उपयोग हो रहा हो, तो हाई कोर्ट हस्तक्षेप कर सकता है। सीमा का संकेत: कोर्ट ने चेताया कि चूंकि यह एक कल्याणकारी कानून है, इसलिए हाई कोर्ट को बहुत सावधानी और संयम के साथ इस धारा का प्रयोग करना चाहिए – केवल जब स्पष्ट रूप से कानून का दुरुपयोग या गंभीर अन्याय हो । मानवता और सीख: जस्टिस ओका ने माना कि पूर्व में बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट के निर्णय का हिस्सा रहे वे स्वयं थे, लेकिन अब उस मत को गलत मानते हैं – "जज के लिए भी सीखने की प्रक्रिया हमेशा जारी रह...

 ⚖️ BNS 2023 – Practical MCQs (Set 1: Q1–Q15) Q1. A, a public servant, intentionally prepares a false case diary to protect an accused person. What offence is attracted under BNS, 2023? (A) Fabrication of evidence (B) Public servant framing incorrect record – Section 229 (C) Giving false information (D) Criminal conspiracy ✅ Answer: (B) Public servant framing incorrect record – Section 229 🧠 Explanation: Under Section 229, a public servant who knowingly prepares an incorrect record to protect or harm someone is punishable. This section specifically targets abuse of official position. Q2. X finds a wallet containing ₹50,000. He keeps it despite knowing who the owner is. Under BNS, 2023: (A) No offence as he didn’t steal (B) Criminal misappropriation – Section 317 (C) Theft (D) Extortion ✅ Answer: (B) Criminal misappropriation – Section 317 🧠 Explanation: When a person dishonestly keeps property that belongs to another, even if he didn’t steal it, it amounts t...

When Civil Disputes Become Criminal: Supreme Court's Stern Reminder in Birani Case Rikhab Birani & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , Civil   Appeal No. of 2025 | Date: April 16, 2025 | Justices: Sanjiv Khanna (CJI) and Sanjay Kumar, J. Background of the Dispute In June 2020 , appellants Rikhab Birani and Sadhna Birani orally agreed to sell a godown in Kanpur to Shilpi Gupta for ₹1.35 crore . Shilpi and her husband claimed to have paid ₹19 lakhs as advance by September 2020 . A cheque of ₹10 lakhs issued by Shilpi bounced; the remaining payment was never made. The Biranis later sold the godown to another buyer in September 2021 for a lower price of ₹90 lakhs , citing changed circumstances. Legal Journey 2021–2023 : Shilpi Gupta filed two criminal complaints before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC ; both were dismissed as purely civil disputes. In July 2023 , she directly filed an FIR under IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (c...