LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 6 R. 17 ----- Amendment of plaint after a final decree is passed in a suit for partition ----- application for amendment of a mistake, said to be a clerical one, in the decree, seeking deletion of the Town Survey No. 462 and substituting the same by the Town Survey No. 463 ---- The village became a part of the municipality, by reason whereof a new Town Survey was assigned to the suit land being Town Survey No. 463 ------ In the plaint and consequently in the preliminary decree as also in the final decree, Town Survey No. 462 was mistakenly mentioned, which was evidently a typographical mistake ----- The facts are not disputed. The identity of the suit land has not been changed ----- It is not a case where, as submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, one land is being substituted by another ----- The fact that the town survey No. 463 is a joint family property is not in dispute ----- As indicated hereinbefore, it is the same plot which was the subject matter of sale ----- Order of the High Court confirming the order of the Civil Court allowing the amendment is confirmed.

Civil Law – Practice and Procedure – Held: Cause of action to claim a relief of permanent injunction and the cause of action to claim a relief of specific performance of agreement are independent and one cannot include the other and vice versa -- a plaintiff cannot claim a relief of specific performance of agreement against the defendant on a cause of action on which he has claimed a relief of permanent injunction.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 2 R. 2(2) -- Suit to include the whole claim -- the sine qua non for invoking Order 2 Rule 2(2) against the plaintiff by the defendant is that the relief which the plaintiff has claimed in the second suit was also available to the plaintiff for being claimed in the previous suit on the causes of action pleaded in the previous suit against the defendant and yet not claimed by the plaintiff.

Practice and Procedure – Order obtained by fraud – Suppression of execution of two deeds before the Court – Held: Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court -- A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation -- If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party – Order so obtained set aside.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; S. 8 -----
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; ------- Whether presence of Arbitration clause in the agreement oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum ----- Observation of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by holding that Arbitration clause in the agreement cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer For a notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.

Code of Civil Procedure,1908 ; Order XIII, Rule 3 –
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 : Art. 45, Sec. 35 –
Indian Registration Act, 1908; Sec.17,49 –
Hindu Succession Act, 1955 –
Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Order VII Rule 11—Difference between Memorandum of family settlement and Family Settlement – the alleged memorandum of family settlement divided the entire property between plaintiff and defendant and there is relinquishment of the rights of other heirs of the properties and as such it is Family Settlement and not memo (Para 11) – memo does not create any right -- the document was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act as there was relinquishment of share – it should be stamped in proper manner as specified in the Indian Stamp Act – document also being not stamped could not have been accepted in evidence (Para 13) -- whether the said document could have been accepted by the trial court in evidence or not -- whether the said unregistered and properly not stamped document which was inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose -- Held: the same are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose of partition – unstampped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded by paying stamp with penalty.

Limitation to file claim for due maintenance – Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case the Court held that the bar under Section 125(3) cannot be applied

Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996; S. 8 ----- Whether termination of agreement by one party on account of breach committed by the other can make the arbitration clause inoperative ----- Held: where an agreement is terminated by one party on account of the breach committed by the other, particularly, in a case where the clause is framed in wide and general terms, merely because agreement has come to an end by its termination by mutual consent, the arbitration clause does not get perished nor is rendered inoperative.
Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996; S. 8 ----- Whether termination of agreement by one party on account of breach committed by the other can make the arbitration clause inoperative ----- Held: the prerequisites for an application under Section 8 are fulfilled, viz., there is an arbitration agreement; the party to the agreement brings an action in the court against the other party; the subject matter of the action is the same as the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement; and the other party moves the court for referring the parties to arbitration before it submits his first statement on the substance of the dispute ----- the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit afteran application under Section 8 of the Act is made for arbitration.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Divorce on the ground of cruelty against wife – Wife attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene without any reason – Observed that no husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life -- The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress – Held: Only this one event was sufficient for the Appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty;

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 –; Wife’s claim to get separated from her in laws and to live separately with husband -- Observed that In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family – A wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage -- No husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income – Held: The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband;

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Rejection of Insurance claim – Insurance by home loan borrower – On 29.09.2008 premium was deducted from loan account towards Insurance company -- Proposal form dated 29.09.2008 was accompanied by good health declaration by the insured – Insured person died on 17.12.2009 – Neither the bank nor the insurance company had ever informed the proposer or the appellant herein about the non-issuance of policy for want of medical certificate -- in the case of joint housing loan the full loan amount will be insured even if the policy is issued in the name of only one loanee -- Claim to pay the outstanding loan amount rejected – State Commission allowed the claim – National Commission set aside the order of State Commission – Supreme Court upheld the observation of State Commission.

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 65 (C) and (f) – Admissibility of public document – Secondary evidence of content of document when the original public document is lost or destroyed – Held: Under S. 65 clauses (a) and (c) secondary evidence was admissible -- It is held that a case may fall both under clauses (a) or (c) and (f) in which case secondary evidence would be admis-sible. It was held that clauses (a) and (c) were independent of clause (f) and even an ordinary copy would, therefore, be admissible -- As stated above the case that the original was no longer available in Court records and the certified copy was lost has not been disbelieved -- Thus the ordinary copy of the earlier judgment was admissible in evidence and had been correctly marked as an exhibit by the trial court.