Increase in rent
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 -- Right of -- Tenant has been cultivating the suit land at fixed lagan/very old rate of Rs.60 per annum -- Assistant Collector Ist Grade was well within his jurisdiction to direct the tenant, to execute the Qabuliatnama/Pattanama and to pay the rent in respect of the land in dispute, not exceeding 1/3rd of the crop of such land or the value thereof, as determined in the prescribed manner. Dalel Singh v. The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 321 (P&H).
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)
Section 76, 77, 78 – Public document – Certified copy thereof – Admissibility of – Presumption of genuineness – Compromise, part of the decree is a public document -- A certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling witness -- There is presumption as to the genuineness of such certified copy. Jaswant Singh v. Gurdev Singh & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 632 (SC).
Section 76, 77, 78 – Public document – Certified copy thereof – Genuineness of certified copy not challenged in any manner, although the record of the Court has been proved to be burnt in a fire in Judicial Record Room – Held, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of compromise (Ex.D3). Jaswant Singh v. Gurdev Singh & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 632 (SC).
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899)
Section 47-A -- Collector’s rate – Market Value -- It will be dangerous to allow for officials to adopt an ad hoc approach and make their own whimsical assessments of valuation even more than the Collector's rate -- It will spell out scope for arbitrariness, it shall not be permissible. Aggarwal Construction Company v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 608 (P&H).
Section 47-A -- Market Value – Undervaluation of – Onus of proof -- Deviation from the Collector's rate would be possible only if it is shown that Collector's valuation does not reflect the market rate -- If the State that wants to contend that Collector's rate does not reflect the market rate and the market rate is even higher than the Collector's rate, the burden shall be on the State to give tangible materials to act on. Aggarwal Construction Company v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 608 (P&H).
Section 47-A -- State is bound to produce material for justification of a higher levy and to call upon the private party to show materials to substantiate that the Collector's rate is not correct -- On the other hand, the Collector's rate itself is justification for a party to rely on -- Order of levy of additional stamp duty is quashed. Aggarwal Construction Company v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 608 (P&H).
Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925)
Section 63 – Unprivileged Wills -- Execution of -- Attestation of – Testator must sign or affix his mark on the Will or the same shall be signed by some other person as per his direction and in his presence -- Signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him shall be placed in a manner which may convey the intention of the testator to give effect to the writing as a Will, which is also required to be attested by two or more persons, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark on the Will or some other person sign the Will in the presence or as per the direction of the testator -- If the witness has received a personal acknowledgment from the testator of his signature or mark or the signature of other person signing on his behalf, then it is not necessary that both the witnesses shall simultaneously remain present -- No particular form of attestation is necessary. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Section 63 -- Will – Suspicious circumstances -- Witness deposed, the testator had affixed left thumb mark on Exhibit D.1 and he had signed the Will as a witness in the clinic -- Witness did not say that testator had affixed left thumb mark in his presence and that he had put his signatures as witness in the presence of the testator -- Executant was suffering from acute stomach cancer and was not in a position to eat or walk -- Just 14 days after the execution of the second Will, the executant died – Held, execution of Will was highly suspicious. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Section 63, 71 – Unprivileged Wills – Execution of – Obliteration/ interlineation/ alteration in -- Effect of -- Four corrections have been made on pages 1 and 2 of the Will -- Figures written in letters (four) were substituted with numbers (3) and the name of one daughter was scored out (page 2) -- At the end of the Will, the testator appended his left thumb mark -- On the right side of thumb mark a line has been written with the ink pen/ball pen suggesting that the corrections/alterations were made prior to putting of left thumb mark by the testator -- However, the space between the last line of the typed Will and what was written with the ink pen/ball pen leaves no manner of doubt that the writing on the right side of the thumb mark was made after execution of the Will -- If the corrections/alterations had been made before the testator had appended his left thumb mark, there was no reason why the line showing deletion of the name of one daughter and corrections in the figures were not reflected in the typed Will and why the line was inserted in the little space left between the concluding portion of the Will and the space where the left thumb mark was put by the testator – Held, the corrections/alterations made in Will cannot be said to have been duly attested by the testator as per the requirement of Section 71 of the Act and the daughter is entitled to share in the property specified. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Section 63, 71 –Unprivileged Wills – Obliteration/interlineation/alteration in – Effect of -- Any alteration made in an unprivileged Will after its execution has no effect unless such alteration has been executed in the same manner in which the Will is executed -- Such alterations shall be deemed to be duly executed if the signature of the testator and the subscription of the witnesses is made in the margin or on some other part of the Will opposite or near to such alterations or at the foot or end or opposite to a memorandum referring to such alterations and written at the end or some part of the Will. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Section 69,70 -- Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 53A, 54, 55 – Powers of Attorney Act, 1882 (7 of 1882), Section 1A,2 -- Transfer by Sale agreement/General Power of Attorney/Will – Law summarized -- SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property – Held, Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance -- Transactions of the nature of ‘GPA sales’ or ‘SA/GPA/WILL transfers’ do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property -- Courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property – They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act -- Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records -- What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property -- A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered Assignment of Lease -- It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales -- SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not ‘transfers’ or ‘sales’ and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances -- They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale -- Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered Deeds of Conveyance to complete their title -- The said ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act -- If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotments/leases by Development Authorities -- Documents relating to ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal or revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision – However observations are not intended to in any way affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions -- For example, A person may give a power of attorney to his spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative to manage his affairs or to execute a deed of conveyance -- A person may enter into a development agreement with a land developer or builder for developing the land either by forming plots or by constructing apartment buildings and in that behalf execute an agreement of sale and grant a Power of Attorney empowering the developer to execute agreements of sale or conveyances in regard to individual plots of land or undivided shares in the land relating to apartments in favour of prospective purchasers -- In several States, the execution of such development agreements and powers of attorney are already regulated by law and subjected to specific stamp duty -- Observations regarding ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ are not intended to apply to such bonafide/genuine transactions. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Section 69,70 – Transfer of property by Will -- Scope of Will -- A will is the testament of the testator -- It is a posthumous disposition of the estate of the testator directing distribution of his estate upon his death -- It is not a transfer inter vivos -- Two essential characteristics of a will are that it is intended to come into effect only after the death of the testator and is revocable at any time during the life time of the testator -- It is said that so long as the testator is alive, a will is not be worth the paper on which it is written, as the testator can at any time revoke it -- If the testator, who is not married, marries after making the will, by operation of law, the will stands revoked -- Registration of a will does not make it any more effective. Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and another, 2011(3) L.A.R. 593 (SC).
Intention to pay rent
Punjab Public Laws – Unauthorized occupant – A mere intention to pay the rent cannot create a document of lease or obtain a status of lessee entitling to continue in possession -- Order of eviction cannot be interfered. Ram Chander v. State of Haryana through Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 357 (P&H).
Interest
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Acquisition of land -- Letter dated 17.2.1995 written by Deputy Chief Engineer (Southern Railway) to the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) indicating that possession of the acquired land had been taken on 11.3.1985 – Held, the letter of the Deputy Chief Engineer is conclusive of the date on which possession was taken, i.e. 11.3.1985 and both, the Reference Court and the High Court committed an error by awarding interest with effect from 20.5.1987. R. Saragapani (Dead) through L.Rs. v. The Special Tahsildar, Karur-Dindigul Broadguage Line, 2011(3) L.A.R. 571 (SC).
Interim order
Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 -- Revision – Stay of award -- Right of – Held, if revision is admitted, ordinarily stay should be granted subject to deposit of part of award amount or on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Revisional Authority -- Without calling any security or without granting any opportunity to the revisionists to deposit the award amount, stay application was rejected which is not correct. Promila Suri and others v. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 47 (P&H).
Interlineation in Unprivileged Wills
Any alteration made in an unprivileged Will after its execution has no effect unless such alteration has been executed in the same manner in which the Will is executed -- Such alterations shall be deemed to be duly executed if the signature of the testator and the subscription of the witnesses is made in the margin or on some other part of the Will opposite or near to such alterations or at the foot or end or opposite to a memorandum referring to such alterations and written at the end or some part of the Will. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Four corrections have been made on pages 1 and 2 of the Will -- Figures written in letters (four) were substituted with numbers (3) and the name of one daughter was scored out (page 2) -- At the end of the Will, the testator appended his left thumb mark -- On the right side of thumb mark a line has been written with the ink pen/ball pen suggesting that the corrections/alterations were made prior to putting of left thumb mark by the testator -- However, the space between the last line of the typed Will and what was written with the ink pen/ball pen leaves no manner of doubt that the writing on the right side of the thumb mark was made after execution of the Will -- If the corrections/alterations had been made before the testator had appended his left thumb mark, there was no reason why the line showing deletion of the name of one daughter and corrections in the figures were not reflected in the typed Will and why the line was inserted in the little space left between the concluding portion of the Will and the space where the left thumb mark was put by the testator – Held, the corrections/alterations made in Will cannot be said to have been duly attested by the testator as per the requirement of Section 71 of the Act and the daughter is entitled to share in the property specified. Dayanandi v. Rukma D. Suvarna and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 534 (SC).
Interlocutory orders
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 -- Appeal – Revision -- Prior to the Harjit Singh Uppal’s judgment, JT 2011(6) SC 236 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was consistent view of the High Court that appeals filed against the order of Rent Controller except u/s 4, 10, 12 and 13 of Rent Act were not appealable and only revision was maintainable before High Court against such orders – Thus, the earlier withdrawal of the appeal to avail the remedy of revision petition cannot come in their way to pursue their remedy of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. Harish Chand and others v. Anil Kumar, 2011(3) L.A.R. 37 (P&H).
Interpretation of statute
Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 -- Tax on advertisement -- When the clear, plain and unambiguous words of a Statute are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning notwithstanding the hardship, inconvenience or other consequences. Aradhana Drinks & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 69 (P&H DB).
Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 -- Words of an enactment are to be given their ordinary, popular and natural meaning -- If such meaning is clear and unambiguous, the effect should be given to a provision of a statute in the same manner whatever may be the consequences -- If the language of a statute is clear, the only duty of the Court is to give effect to it and the Court has no business to look into the consequences of such interpretation -- Court is under an obligation to expound the law as it exists and leave the remedy to the legislature, even if harsh conclusions result from such exposition -- Equally, it is now well recognized proposition of law that mandatory provisions and command of law have to be complied with in the same manner as envisaged and mandated by any statute and it cannot be interpreted otherwise. Sukhwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(3) L.A.R. 279 (P&H).
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Legislature has chosen exactly the same phraseology in Sections 67(1) and 72(1) of the 1966 Act -- One of the cardinal principle of interpretation of Statutes is that a word which occurs more than once in the same Act should be given the same meaning throughout the Act, unless the context shows that the Legislature has used the word in a different sense -- Since no different legislative intent is foreseeable or can be inferred from the plain reading of the provisions of Part-VII, we hold that the nature and extent of directions that may be issued by the Central Government under sub-Section (1) of Section 72 shall be similar to those which it can issue under Section 67(1) in respect of the State Electricity Board or the State Warehousing Corporation, namely, for continuation of their function in those areas in respect of which they were functioning immediately before the appointed day. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 -- Usage of words “Modification” and “Amendment” -- Court shall always proceed on the premise that the Legislature has inserted every expression for a purpose and the legislative intention is that none of the provisions of the Statute is found redundant -- If the Parliament’s intention while using the phrase ‘modification’ were to confer the power of ‘amendment’ it would have inserted the latter phrase in Section 72 to avoid any ambiguity -- Word ‘modification’ in Section 72, therefore, cannot be construed analogous to the word ‘amendment’ which finds mention in Sections 70 & 86 of the 1966 Act. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors., 2011(3) L.A.R. 409 (P&H Full Bench).
No comments:
Post a Comment