Posts

Showing posts from October, 2012

"Law respects possession even if there is no title to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual possession without having recourse to a Court. No person can be allowed to become a Judge in his own cause." = In M.C. Chockalingam v. V. Manickavasagam ((1974) 1 SCC 48), this Court held that the law forbids forcible dispossession, even with the best of title. In Krishna Ram Mahale v. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao, ((1989) 4 SCC 131), it was held that where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that he had no right to remain on the property, he cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law. In Nagar Palika, Jind v. Jagat Singh ((1995) 3 SCC 426), this Court held that disputed questions of title are to be decided by due process of law, but the peaceful possession is to be protected from the trespasser without regard to the question of the origin of the possession.. It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking the law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force. In the absence of proof of better title, possession or prior peaceful settled possession is itself evidence of title. Law presumes the possession to go with the title unless rebutted. The owner of any property may prevent even by using reasonable force a trespasser from an attempted trespass, when it is in the process of being committed, or is of a flimsy character, or recurring, intermittent, stray or casual in nature or has just been committed, while the rightful owner did not have enough time to have recourse to law. In the last of the cases, the possession of the trespasser, just entered into would not be called as one acquiesced to by the true owner".

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO          
CCC APPEAL No.225 OF 2001 and bt    

09-06-2011

Smt.Askari Begum and others

Md.Ayaz Khan and others

Counsicl of Petitioner:---

Counsil for Respondent:--

:JUDGMENT:  


        Both the appeals arise out of common property, which is a house property
bearing No.22-3-908 situated at Vazir Ali lane, Darulshifa, Hyderabad, in an
extent of 197 square yards.

2.      City Civil Court Appeal No.225 of 2001 arises out of the judgment in
O.S.No.756 of 1991 on the file of I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, whereas the Second Appeal arises out of the judgment in A.S.No.292 of
1988 on the file of Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
        The parties are referred as in O.S.No.756 of 1991.

3.      The facts of the case are that the suit property originally belonged to
one Khaja Fateh Ali and he sold the same to Smt. Kaneez Fiza @ Putli Bi, W/o.
Syed Mohd.Thaqui Saheb on 18.01.1925 for a consideration of Rs.7…

Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint -The petitioner filed I.A.No.2009/2008 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the plaint mainly on three grounds, namely, (i) that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is filed; (ii) that the defendant was not properly described, thereby no cause arose in respect of the defendant as shown in the plaint and (iii) that the copyright of the plaintiff was not extended and the same was not in force when the suit was filed. The Court below dismissed the said application. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY        

C.R.P.No.4666 of 2011

18-1-2012

M/s. Global Impex Represented by its ProprietorRajesh Mandoth, Mysore,Karnataka

M/s. Greenply Industries Ltd.,Represented by its G.P.A. Holder Dr. Rama
Krishna, Hyderabad.

 Counsel for petitioner : Sri N. Subba Rao

 Counsel for respondent : --

ORDER:
        This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 15-7-2011 in
I.A.No.2009/2008 in O.S.No.55/2008 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Judge-
Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
        The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.55/2008 filed by the respondent,
alleging infringement of copyright.  The petitioner filed I.A.No.2009/2008 under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of the
plaint mainly on three grounds, namely, (i) that no part of cause of action had
arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is filed; (ii)
that the defendant was not properly described, thereby no cause …

Preventive Detention Law - "if no bail application is pending, there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and therefore, the order of detention would be illegal", and the law laid down therein, having been consistently followed by the Apex Court in its subsequent judgments in Yumman Ongbi Lembi v. State of Manipur and Munagala Yadamma v. State of A.P., and in a very recent judgment in K. Nageswara Naidu v. Collector & District Magistrate, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, we are of the considered opinion that the order of detention passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2-Government, suffers from his lack of subjective satisfaction, and as such, is liable to be set aside. - The law is well settled that if any one of the grounds of detention, which formed the basis for the Detaining Authority to pass the order of detention is found to be irrelevant, then the whole of the order of detention is liable to be set aside. Since on issue No.1 we have held that the order of detention passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2- Government, is vitiated due to his lack of subjective satisfaction, and is liable to be set aside, we are not inclined to answer issue No.2. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the order of detention dated 11.01.2012, passed by respondent No.1-Detaining Authority, as confirmed by respondent No.2-Government by order dated 24.02.2012, is set aside. The detenu shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. No costs.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD        

WRIT PETITION No.12340 of 2012  

28.09.2012

Rage Mounika

The Collector & District Magistrate,YSR District, Kadapa and two others

Counsel for the Petitioner: MRS.D.Sangeetha Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: The Advocate General

>HEAD NOTE:  

? Cases referred
1 (2011) 5 SCC 244
2 (2012) 2 SCC 176
3 (2012) 2 SCC 386
4 Criminal Appeal No. 1113 of 2012, dated 26.07.2012
5 (1975) 3 SCC 198
6 (1983) 4 SCC 301
7 (2012) 2 SCC 389
8 AIR 1964 SC 334
9 (2012) 2 SCC 386
10. Criminal Appeal No. 1113 of 2012, dated 26.07.2012

O r d e r: (Per Sri. N.V. Ramana, J.)

        The petitioner, who claims to be the wife of the detenu, namely Rage
Nagasekhar, who is now detained in Central Prison, Cherlapally, has filed this
writ petition praying for a Writ of Corpus, directing the respondents to produce
the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
        The Divisional Forest Officer, K…

Order 18, Rule 17 C.P.C.- It is true that the conduct of defendants 2 and 3 is not appreciable. When they suffered an order in I.A.No.4642 of 2006 seeking enlargement of time for filing written statement, they misrepresented to the Court below that they had obtained stay orders from the High Court. They made the said representation on 13-03-2007, when the stay was actually granted on 10-08-2007. In fact, the revision itself was filed on 31-07-2007 and the same was returned and re- submitted again only on 03-08-2007 and on such misrepresentation of fact, the matter was adjourned on a couple of occasions. These facts were in fact noticed by this Court in the C.R.P.No.3519 of 2007 and the request of the defendants 2 and 3 to extend the time for filing written statement was rejected. Thus, the defendants 2 and 3 were not allowed to file the written statement. In my view, the defendants are sufficiently punished and the same conduct should not come in their way at least for cross-examining the plaintiff.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI      

C.R.P.Nos.3404 of 2010 and Batch

21.09.2012

P.Bhaskara Rao

Mr.Wolfgang Ormeloh, Managing Director & CEO, Alumeco India Extrusion Limited,  
and another

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Y.Ratnakar

Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: Mrs.Sangeeta Bhaskar

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Citations:NIL

C.R.P. Nos.3404, 3405 and 3406 of 2010

COMMON ORDER :    

1)      These Revision Petitions are connected arising out of the same suit
between the same parties and involve common facts and law. Hence the revision
petitions are disposed of by this common order.
2)      The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondents 1 and 2  herein are
defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.354 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.  Defendant No.2 (respondent No.1
herein) is the Managing Director of defendant No.3 (respondent No.2 herein)
Company.  Respondent No.3 herein viz., P.Surya Prakash, Company Secretary, i…