[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 349 of 2006]. Indian society's discrimination towards female child still exists due to various reasons which has its roots in the social behaviour and prejudices against the female child and, due to the evils of the dowry system, still prevailing in the society, in spite of its prohibition under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The decline in the female child ratio all over the country leads to an irresistible conclusion that the practice of eliminating female foetus by the use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques is widely prevalent in this country. Complaints are many, where at least few of the medical professionals do perform Sex Selective Abortion having full knowledge that the sole reason for abortion is because it is a female foetus. The provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 are also being consciously violated and misused. The Parliament wanted to prevent the same and enacted the Pre- Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition on Sex- Selection) Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') which has its roots in Article 15(2) of the Constitution of India. The Act is welfare legislation.
↧
Voluntary Health Association of Punjab Vs. Union of India [04/03/13]
↧
P. Radhakrishna Murthy Vs. M/s. N.B.C.C. Ltd. [05/03/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos.1393-1394 of 2003]. The appellant contractor filed these Civil Appeals questioning the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka dated 29th August 2002 in Misc. First Appeal No. 4377 of 2000 (AA) along with cross Objection No.34/2001 wherein the appeal of the National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'NBCC') was partly allowed and award passed by the Arbitrator was modified in regard to claims1(a), (b), (c) and 2(a), (c), (e), (f) and (g). The High Court set aside the award of Rs. 8,16,412/- in regard to claim Nos.1(a),(b), (c) and 2(a),(c), (e), (f) and (g). Also, the rejection of claims under 1(d) and 1(e) is upheld and award of Rs.13,050/- and 10,204/- against claims 2(c) and (d)are also upheld. Cross objection filed by the contractor regarding grant of certain items of claims made by him is dismissed and consequently it is held that the contractor will be entitled to Rs.9,01,871.53 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 28.12.1987 till the date of deposit of payment by NBCC. Also, the amount paid by the NBCC in pursuance of the interim order passed by the High Court will be adjusted to the amounts payable and if excess has been received by the contractor, then he shall repay the same within three months to NBCC. This Order of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals urging various facts and legal contentions. For the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contention surged on behalf of the parties the brief facts are stated hereunder.
↧
↧
Ayurved Shastra Seva Mandal Vs. Union of India [06/03/13]
[SLP (C) No. 31892 of 2012]. [SLP (C) No.33452 of 2012]. These Special Leave Petitions have been filed against orders passed by the Aurangabad Bench and the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court involving common issues. The matters relating to the Aurangabad Bench arise out of a common order dated 4th October, 2012, in regard to admissions to the various institutions teaching the Indian form of medicines such as Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha, etc. for the academic year 2011-12. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35051 of 2012 has been filed by the Umar Bin Khattab Welfare Trust against the judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court against an order dated 29th December, 2010, regarding admissions for the self-same period. The other Special Leave Petitions relate to the common orders dated 13th July, 2012 and 2nd August, 2012 passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court regarding admissions for the year 2011-12. Yet, another Special Leave Petition regarding admissions for the year 2012-13, has been filed by the Backward Class Youth Relief Committee and Another against the order dated 9thAugust, 2012, passed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The common issue involved in all the Special Leave Petitions is in regard to the refusal by the Government of India, in its Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy, hereinafter referred to as "AYUSH", to grant permission to the colleges to admit students for the academic year 2011-12, for the BAMS/ Post Graduate courses.
↧
State of Orissa Vs. M/s. Mesco Steels Ltd. [06/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2206 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16139 of 2010]. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th May, 2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack whereby Writ Petition No.14044 of 2006 filed by the respondent-company has been allowed, an inter- departmental communication in the form of a letter dated 19th September, 2006 addressed by the Director of Mines to Joint Secretary to Government of Orissa quashed and by writ of mandamus the State Government directed to execute a mining lease for an area measuring 1519.980 hectares in favour of the respondent-company. By Notification No.647/91 dated 23rd August, 1991, the Government of Orissa de-reserved and threw open Iron/Manganese Ore areas spreading over 282.46 square miles in five blocks located in Keonjhar and Sundergarh districts in the State. Applications were then invited from interested private parties in terms of Rule 59 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 for grant of prospecting licenses and mining leases in respect of the said blocks. The exercise was, it appears, intended to boost the economy of the State by ensuring optimum utilisation of its mineral reserves and in the process generating employment opportunities for the predominantly tribal population inhabiting the two districts of the State. The invitation to apply for leases and to set up steel plants was open to all leading steel manufacturers.
↧
Rajamani Vs. State of Kerala [06/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 2013 arising out of S.L.P (CRL.) No.9343 of 2012]. The appellant was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 55(a) of the Kerala Abkari Act (1 of 1077). He was found guilty by the Trial Court and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years besides a fine of rupees one lakh. In default of payment a further sentence of one year simple imprisonment was also awarded. The co-accused in the case was, however, acquitted by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence awarded to him, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.1345 of 2003 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The High Court reappraised the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the appellant had been rightly held to be proved by the Trial Court. The conviction recorded against the appellant was accordingly affirmed but the sentence awarded to him reduced from seven years to five years but with an enhanced fine of rupees two lakhs in default of payment whereof the appellant was to undergo a further imprisonment of two years. When the special leave petition filed by the appellant against the above judgment and order came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 26th November, 2012, we issued notice to the respondent limited to the question of quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant.
↧
↧
State of U.P. Vs. Mahesh Narain [06/03/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 2208-2209 OF 2013 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7441-7442/2008]. The appellant-State of Uttar Pradesh has preferred these appeals against the common judgment and order dated 5.9.2007 passed in two writ petitions bearing Nos. 1049(S/B)/2007 and 1040(S/B)/2007 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow was pleased to dismiss both the writ petitions filed by the appellant/State of U.P. herein. The aforesaid two writ petitions were filed by the appellant/State of U.P. represented by the Department of Forensic Science and the Department of Home assailing the judgment and order of the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (for short 'the Tribunal') and seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 10.4.2007 passed by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal was pleased to direct the State of U.P. to consider the case of the respondents for promotion on the post of Assistant Director and grant them all consequential benefits if found suitable.
↧
Joydeb Patra Vs. State of West Bengal [06/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2007]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 28.07.2006 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1988. The facts very briefly are that Madhabi Patra @ Khendi got married to Joydeb Patra, the Appellant No. 1 herein. Through the marriage she got a daughter. She again became pregnant and when she was carrying the pregnancy for nine months, a ceremonial function called 'Sadh' was arranged on 18th Baisak, 1393 B.S. After taking food, Madhabi fell ill and her condition deteriorated quickly and she died late in the night. According to the prosecution, Madhabi (the deceased) had died because poison was administered to her with the food by the appellants. Accordingly, after investigation, a charge- sheet was filed and the Appellant No. 1 and his father, brother (appellant No. 2), sister (appellant No. 3) and mother (appellant No. 4) were tried and convicted under Section 302/34, I.P.C. The accused persons filed Criminal Appeal No. 397 of 1988 before the High Court of Calcutta but by the impugned judgment, the High Court maintained the conviction of the appellants. We are told that the father of the Appellant No. 1 died when the appeal was pending before the High Court and appellant No. 3 died during the pendency of the appeal before this Court.
↧
Pournima Suryakant Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra [07/03/13]
[Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3910 of 2008]. Both the petitions are filed by two cousin (sisters) against the decision of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region, Pune, (for short "Scrutiny Committee") in Case No.ICSC/MPSC/Pune-01/2006 decided on 30th July, 2007 and in Case No. TCSC/SER/PUNE/19/2006 decided on 26th March, 2009, whereby the claim of the petitioners belonging to 'Thakar, Scheduled Tribe' was rejected. Both the petitioners moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by way of separate writ petitions being Writ Petition No.6674 of 2007 and Writ Petition No.5231 of 2009, which were dismissed by orders, dated 8th January, 2008 and 4th November, 2009 respectively. Both the petitioners are relying on common facts in support of their claim. They are also relying on the Certificate issued to Dilip Pandurang Pawar, recognizing his caste to be "Thakar Scheduled Tribe". For the purposes of this order, we shall make a reference to the facts as pleaded by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6674 of 2007. A perusal of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee in the case of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6674 of 2007 would show that she had relied upon the following documents in support of her claim:
↧
Indian Soaps & Toiletries Makers Association Vs. Ozair Husain [07/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 5644 of 2003]. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 13th November, 2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a Public Interest Litigation (Civil Writ PetitionNo.837 of 2001) whereby the High Court held that the consumer has the fundamental right to know whether the food products, cosmetics and drugs available for human consumption are of non-vegetarian or vegetarian origin and ordered as follows: "In so far as cosmetics are concerned, the same must be treated at par with articles/packages of food for the purpose of disclosure of their ingredients. Till such time the requisite amendments are carried out, we direct as under:- Where a cosmetic or a drug other than life saving drug, as the case may be, contains ingredients of non- vegetarian origin, the package shall carry label bearing the following symbol in red colour on the principal display panel just close a proximity to name or brand name of the drug or cosmetic. Where a cosmetic or a drug other than life saving drug, as the case may be, contains ingredients wholly of vegetarian origin, the package shall bear the following symbol in green colour on the principal display panel just close in proximity to name or brand name of the drug or cosmetic.
↧
↧
G.M. Siddeshwar Vs. Prasanna Kumar [08/03/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 2250-2251 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 14172-14173 of 2010]. The principal question of law raised for our consideration is whether, to maintain an election petition, it is imperative for an election petitioner to file an affidavit in terms of Order VI Rule 15(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in support of the averments made in the election petition in addition to an affidavit (in a case where resort to corrupt practices have been alleged against the returned candidate) as required by the proviso to Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In our opinion, there is no such mandate in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and a reading of P.A. Mohammed Riyas v. M.K. Raghavan & Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 511 which suggests to the contrary, does not lay down correct law to this limited extent. Another question that has arisen is that if an affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practices of a returned candidate is not in the statutory Form No. 25 prescribed by the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, whether the election petition is liable to be summarily dismissed. In our opinion, as long as there is substantial compliance with the statutory form, there is no reason to summarily dismiss an election petition on this ground. However, an opportunity must be given to the election petitioner to cure the defect.
↧
State of Rajasthan Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [11/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 1494 of 2008]. [Civil Appeal No. 1526 of 2008]. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 6th July, 2007 delivered by the High Court of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.43 of 2006, the afore-stated two appeals have been filed. One appeal has been filed by the State of Rajasthan whereas the other appeal has been filed by Hindustan Zinc Limited, who had been leased land situated in districts Bhilwara, Rajsamand and Udaipur by the State of Rajasthan for extraction of lead and zinc there from. As both the appeals arise from a common judgment, at the request of the learned counsel, both the appeals were heard together. So far as the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, viz. Civil Appeal No. 1494 of 2008is concerned, it mainly challenges the impugned judgment on the ground that by virtue of methodology directed to be employed in the said judgment, the State would suffer substantial loss as the lessee company, viz. Hindustan Zinc Limited would be paying much less royalty than what it is supposed to pay.
↧
Goudappa Vs. State of Karnataka [11/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2007]. Appellant No. 1, Goudappa (Accused No.3), Appellant No.2, Chhannappa@ Ajjappa (Accused No.4) and Appellant No. 3, Mahadevappa (Accused No.5)aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, have preferred this appeal with the leave of the court. Altogether five brothers namely, Basappa, Vipakshappa, Goudappa, Channappa @ Ajjappa and Mahadevappa were put on trial for offence under Section 143, 148, 452, 341, 302, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted accused no. 1, Basappa and accused no. 2 Vipakshappa of all the charges. Accused no. 3, Goudappa and accused no. 4, Channappa @ Ajjappa were, however, held guilty under Section 304, Part II read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Accused no. 5, Mahadevappa has been convicted under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. They have, however, been acquitted of all other charges. State of Karnataka, aggrieved by the order of acquittal of the aforesaid two accused and conviction of other three only under Section 304, Part II, instead under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and those convicted and sentenced also preferred separate appeals before the High Court. Both the appeals were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment.
↧
Gambhirsinh R. Dekare Vs. Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel [11/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No.433 of 2013 (@Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 3475 of 2008]. The petitioner Gambhirsinh R. Dekare, at the relevant point of time was serving as Taluka Mamlatdar and an Executive Magistrate in Vadodara Taluka in the State of Gujarat. A Gujarati daily newspaper "Sandesh" is published from different places i.e., Surat, Valsad, Bharuch, Vadodara and other cities of India. Navinbhai Chauhan is the ResidentEditor of Vadodara edition of "Sandesh" whereas Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patelis the Editor of "Sandesh". The newspaper published a news item in its Vadodara issue dated 28.09.1999 that the petitioner "is in love and keeping illicit relations with the wife of a doctor at Ajwa Road with the following headlines: "Mamlatdar Shri Gambhirsinh Dhakre is caught red handed by the youngsters - Mamlatdar is indulged in illicit relations with the wife of Doctor who is residing at Ajwa Road - attempts to conceal the matter - why the Government is not taking any action against the Mamlatdar?" According to the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant"), the allegation published in the newspaper is false and defamatory. Accordingly, he filed complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. The complainant alleged that the news items are printed in the newspaper "as per the instructions and directions of the accused persons". In paragraph 3 of the complaint the complainant alleged as under:
↧
↧
Debabrata Dash Vs. Jatindra Prasad Das [11/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2316 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 192 of 2012]. The inter se seniority between the appellants and respondent no. 1 in the Senior Branch cadre of Orissa Superior Judicial Service is the subject matter of this appeal. In the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 before the High Court, the principal question under consideration was whether the service rendered by him (writ petitioner) in the Fast Track Court as Additional District Judge is to be taken into account while fixing his seniority after regularization of his service in the Senior Branch cadre under the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 (for short, "1963 Rules"). The High Court in the impugned judgment dated 15.11.2011 has answered the above question in favour of the writ petitioner, allowed the writ petition and directed the Orissa High Court on administrative side to treat the period of service rendered by the writ petitioner in the Fast Track Court for the purpose of seniority from the date of his joining the post i.e., 26.04.2002 and re-fix his seniority in light of the judgment. The appellants, direct recruits, who were respondent nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition, have challenged the above judgment principally on the ground that it is not consistent with the 1963 Rules, Orissa Judicial Service (Special Schemes) Rules, 2001 and Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007.
↧
State of U.P. Vs. Hari Ram [11/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 2326 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12960/2008]. [Civil Appeal No. 2327 of 2013 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10625/2006]. We are, in these batch of cases, called upon to decide the question whether the deemed vesting of surplus land under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 [for short 'the Act'] would amount to taking de facto possession depriving the land holders of the benefit of the saving Clause under Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 [for short 'the Repeal Act']. FACTS: Hari Ram, respondent herein, had filed a statement on 28.9.1976 giving details of the vacant land he was holding in excess of ceiling limit prescribed under the Act, as provided under Section 6 of the Act. The competent authority under the Act surveyed the land and the respondent was served with a draft statement under Section 8(3) of the Act on 13.5.1981, calling for objection to the draft statement within thirty days. No objection was preferred by the respondent and it was found that he was holding excess land measuring 52,513.30 sq. meters and an order to that effect was passed by the competent authority under Section 8(4) of the Act, vide his proceeding dated 29.6.1981.
↧
Budh Singh Vs. State of Haryana [11/03/13]
[Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 15 of 2012]. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter for short "the NDPS Act") by an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Haryana dated 27.7.1990. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh only), in default, to suffer further RI for a period of 3 years. The said order has been confirmed in appeal. The petitioner, on the date of the filing of the present writ petition, had undergone custody for a period of more than 7 years. He contends that taking into account the remissions which would have been due to him under different Government Notifications/ Orders issued from time to time he would have been entitled to be released from prison. However, by virtue of the provisions of Section 32A of the NDPS Act, the benefit of such remissions have been denied to him resulting in his continued custody. Consequently, by means of this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, he has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 32A of the NDPS Act, inter-alia, on the ground that the said provision violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14, 20(1) and 21 of the Constitution.
↧
Aresh @ Ashok J. Mehta (D) by prop. LRS. Vs. Spl. Tahsildar, Balgaum Karnataka [11/03/13]
[Civil Appeal No. 5517 of 2005]. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-landlord against the judgment & order dated 6th August, 1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 8110/1996 whereby the Division Bench rejected the prayer for interest on amount of compensation w.e.f. 1stMarch, 1974 and thereby affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge but held that the appellant-landlord is entitled for interest w.e.f.1st March, 1984. The appellant was the owner of the land bearing R.S. No. 16/1, measuring 7 acres 21 guntas in village-Examba, Taluka Chikodi, Karnataka. The land in question was vested with the State for grant in favour of the tenant w.e.f. 1st March, 1974 under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 as amended by Act No.1 of 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Tehsildar, Chikodi under Section 48A(7) and Section 53 heard the appellant-landlord and the tenant and determined the quantum of amount payable at Rs. 17,244/- vide order dated 28.2.1983. It was held that a sum of Rs. 2,000/- is to be paid as first installment within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order and the balance in 19 equated annual installments with interest @ 5 1/2% as indicated therein.
↧
↧
Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar Vs. State of Karnataka [11/03/13]
[Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2007]. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 11th September, 2006 of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2006. The facts very briefly are: The appellant was married to Rajbee on 21st April, 1997. She committed suicide on 29th March, 1998. A case was registered and investigated by the Police Inspector [Anti-Dowry Cell] and charge sheet was filed against the appellant and the mother of the appellant for offences under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 IPC as well as Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution case was that at the time of marriage of the appellant with Rajbee(the deceased), '1,000/- cash and one tola of gold was given to the appellant and thereafter the appellant harassed the deceased further for more dowry of '10,000/- and the deceased informed about this harassment to her mother. Thereafter, the mother of the deceased was able to give '2000/- towards the demand but was unable to pay the balance amount of '8000/-. The deceased came along with the appellant to her mother's place and when the appellant was told that her family does not have any capacity to meet the balance demand of '8000/-, the deceased went back to her matrimonial house weeping and saying that her life would not be safe. She came back again to her mother's place during the Holi festival and complained of harassment and once again asked for the balance amount of '8000/-, but the same was not paid to her by her mother and within fifteen days of this incident, the deceased committed suicide.
↧
Joseph John Peter Sandy Vs. Veronica Thomas Rajkumar [12/03/13]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 2178-2179 of 2004]. [Civil Appeal Nos. 2184-2185 of 2004]. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Madras in A.S. No. 1104 of 1987 and Transferred A.S. No. 1120 of 2001, wherein it has set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court which had decreed the suit of the appellant and dismissed the suit of the respondent No.1. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: The contesting parties are the son and the daughter of late B.P. Sandy. Though late B.P. Sandy had several children, considering his old age, he decided to transfer/settle his two houses bearing nos.22 and 23, Peria Palli Street, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai-28 in favour of his youngest son and daughter (the contesting parties herein) respectively. Therefore, the father of the parties executed two registered settlement deeds on 27.8.1981 bearing nos. 1690/81 and 1691/81 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Mylapore, Chennai, transferring House No. 23 in the name of his daughter (Respondent No. 1) and House No. 22 in the name of his son (Appellant).
↧
Garre Mallikharjuna Rao (D) by LRS. Vs. Nalabothu Punniah [12/03/13]
[Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No. 647 of 2005]. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.7.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal No. 676 of 1993, which had set aside the judgment of the trial court, wherein the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 9.11.1992 in O.S. No. 117 of 1983. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: That the respondent/plaintiff filed two suits O.S. No. 117 of 1983 and O.S. No. 257 of 1984, seeking specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell entered into with the appellant. As per the averments made by the respondent/plaintiff, late Garre Venkata Ramakotaiah, father of the defendant Garre Mallikharjuna, had leased out the plaint scheduled properties on 29.4.1980, by way of lease deed dated 20.4.1980. The respondent/plaintiff on the basis of the lease deed, had claimed to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said properties. The defendant having filed the written statement, died pendentelite, thus his wife, son and daughter had been substituted as his legal representatives. They defended the suit contending that the plaint was based on false and fabricated document. Further, they claimed that the agreement to sell, alleged to have been executed by the father of the defendant, was a fabricated document and that the signature of defendant shown therein as an attesting witness, had also been forged. Thus, the suit may be dismissed.
↧