Know the 50 civil laws that were enacted by the Supreme Court in 2019
April 26, 2020
Supreme Court held the rule under Mitakshara Law that whenever a male ancestor inherits any property from any of his parental ancestors up to 3 degrees above him, then his male legal heirs up to three degrees below him would get equal rights as coparceners in that property will apply in cases of succession which opened under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
The bench of Justices UU Lalit and Indu Malhotra by applying this rule allowed an appeal filed by Arshnoor Singh to set aside the sale deeds executed by his father Dharam Singh in 1999. As per impugned sale deeds, Dharam Singh alienated joint family property to the respondent, whom he subsequently married as Second Wife.
(Case - Arshnoor Singh vs. Harpal Kaur and others, Civil Appeal Number- 5124/2019, the case was decided on 2 July ’19)
The Supreme Court held that property inherited from father by sons becomes joint family property in the hands of sons. The bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi rendered this decision.
(Case - Dodamuniyappa through LRs vs. Muniswamy and others, Civil Appeal Number- 7141/2008, decided on 1 July ’19)
The Supreme Court held that the father’s self-acquired property given to the son by way of will or gift will retain the character of the self-acquired property and will not become an ancestral property unless a contrary intention is expressed in the testament as per Mitakshara Law of Succession.
The bench of Justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta was dealing with this appeal from Gujarat High Court.
(Case - GovindBhai ChottaBhai Patel and ors. vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai, Civil Appeal Number- 7528/2019 and the case was decided on 25 September ’19)
The Supreme Court has found fault with the judgment of Haryana and Punjab High Court, which held that a decree for specific performance to be in executable as the balance sale consideration was deposited by the plaintiff after the appeal, beyond the period fixed by the trial court.
The bench of Justice DY Chandrachaud And Justice Indira Banerjee held that the court’s decree had merged with the appeal court’s decree. Hence, on the part of the plaintiff, there was no delay in depositing the balance sale consideration.
(Case: Surinder Pal Soni v. Sohan Lal (D) through LRs, Civil Appeal Number- 5360/2019, Case was decided on 23 July ’19)
|You May Be Needed: Section-144 CRPC What are the Grounds to Impose Restrictions|
Plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not at all, said the Supreme Court while reiterating that it is not permissible to reject a plaint qua any particular portion of the plaint, including against some of the defendants and continue the same against others.
“If the plaint survives against certain defendants and or properties, Order VII Rule 11 (d) of Code of Civil Procedure will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial” bench observed.
(Case: Madhav Prasad Aggrawal v. Axis Bank, SLP (c) number- 31579/2018 the case was decided on 1 July ’19)
Supreme Court Bench comprising Of Justices Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that the Execution Petition filed without a certified copy of the decree is maintainable unless the court directs the decree-holder to file a certified copy of the decree.
(Case: Sobha Singh and Sons Pvt. Ltd. V. Shashi Mohan Kapur (D) through LRs, Civil Appeal Number-5534/2019, the case was decided on 15 July ’19)
The Supreme Court held that cross objection has to be disposed of on its merits by assigning reasons notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal.
The bench observed that “Rejection of cross objection without any discussion and reason cannot be countenanced.”
(Case: Shri Badru through LRs Hari Ram etc. V. NTPC, Civil Appeal Number- 5557-5559/2019, the case was decided on 16 July ’19)
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and can’t be forced to add parties against whom he doesn’t want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
(Case: Gurmeet Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson & others, Civil Appeal Number- 5522/2019, the case was decided on 17 July ’19)
The Supreme Court has observed that a compromise decree in a representative suit obtained without the leave of the court and without issuing notice to the interested parties would be void.
(Case: Alia Thammuda Beethathebiyyappura Pookoya v. Pattakal Cheriyakoya, Civil Appeal Number-9586/2010, the case was decided on 1 August’19)
The Supreme Court has observed that it is not necessary that defendants should file a cross objection to the appeal against the dismissal of a suit to dispute adverse findings in the judgment appealed against.
(Case: State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. B Ranga Reddy through LRs, Civil Appeal Number- 17486/2017, case decided on 10 August’19.)
The Supreme Court held that a High Court could not dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there are concurrent findings of two courts, and thus such findings become unassailable.
(Case: State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal, Civil Appeal Number- 7363/2000, the case was decided on 14 August’19 )
The Supreme Court that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure when it is manifestly vexatious, groundless, and meritless in the sense that it doesn’t disclose a clear Right to Sue.
The bench of Justices Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Sanjiv Khanna also observed that a mere contemplation or possibility that a Right may be infringed without any legitimate basis for that Right would not be sufficient to hold that the plaint discloses a cause of action.
(Case: Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar & Sarwan Kumar Jaipuriyar v. Krishna Nandan Singh & others, Civil Appeal Number- 6760/2019 case was decided on 7 September’19)
The Supreme Court has held that the decree against the plaintiff by default bars fresh suit on the same cause of action by their successors in title.
The bench of Justices Arun Mishra and MR Shah set aside a High Court order on the ground that in the previous suit filed by the vendors of the plaintiff, similar relief was prayed. The said suit was dismissed under the provisions of Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the counsel for defendants was present, and the plaintiff was absent.
(Case: Mayandi v. Pandarachamy and another, Civil Appeal Number- 6424/2019, the case was decided on 9 September’19)
The Supreme Court has observed that a settled proposition that an executing court cannot travel beyond decree or order under Execution.
(Case- S Bhaskaran v. Sebastian through LRs, Civil Appeal Number- 7800/2014, the case was decided on 13 September’19)
|You May Be Needed: Right to Free Legal Aid|
The Supreme Court has held that under Section 9A of CPC applicable in the State of Maharashtra, the question of limitation cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.
The bench of Justices Arun Mishra, MR Shah, and BR Gavai observed that under the provision of Section 9 A and order XIV Rule 2, it is open to decide preliminary issues if it is purely a question of law and not a mixed question of law and fact by recording evidence.
(Case – Nuslie Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties and others, Civil Appeal Number- 31982/2013, the case was decided on 6 October’19)
After a plaint is returned in terms of order VII Rule 10 and Rule 10A Code of Civil Procedure, should Proceedings in new Court where returned plaint is filed be started De Novo? The Supreme Court has referred this issue to a larger bench.
In MS Excel Careers & another v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., Bench of Justices Dipak Mishra and Aniruddha Bose made this reference after it noticed an apparent conflict between the judgment in Joginder Tuli v. S.L. Bhatia and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation v. Modern Construction.
(Case: MS Excel Careers v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., SLP (c) number- 16893/2018, the case was decided on 8 October’19.
The Supreme Court held that the entirety of Plaint averments have to be taken into account while considering a plea seeking rejection of the plaint.
(Case: Shaukat Hussain Mohammed Patel v. Khatunben Mohammed Bhai Polara, Civil Appeal Number- 8197/2019, the case was decided on 29 October’19)