List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) after prolonged litigation, finally granted relief to the owner of the suit property (Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf) in favour of whom the decree was already granted back in 2002 in the matter of Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf V. M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

What is the Background of the Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf v. M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Case?

• The appellant, being the owner of the suit property executed a registered lease deed in favour of respondent no. 2. now represented by his son Respondent No. 1.
  • The period of lease was 33 years, and the suit premises was sublet without the permission of respondent no. 1 and 2.
• After the expiry of the lease by efflux of time, the appellant issued a legal notice requiring respondent No. 2 to hand over the vacant possession.
  • A notice of reply was sent by the respondent after which the appellant said that the registered lease was extended orally for another 33 years.
• A reference was filed in accordance with the arbitration clause available under the original lease deed by the respondent.
• The appellant then filed a suit before the Wakf Tribunal seeking a decree for ejectment and recovery of possession, along with arrears of rent and damages, the suit was dismissed
• Not being satisfied with the decree passed, respondents no(s). 1 and 2 filed a revision petition before the High Court (HC).
  • It was also dismissed citing that there is no legal basis to continue in occupation after the expiry of the lease.
• The dilatory tactics adopted by respondents continued even thereafter, to the extent that the appellant had to file an execution petition.
• During the execution proceedings, respondent no. 2 did not raise the plea of maintainability of the suit.
  • However, after four years an additional counter was filed by respondents raising the plea that the suit as laid and decreed ought not to have been entertained. The same came to be dismissed by the executing court.
• A revision petition was filed in the HC in which the earlier HC order was reversed.
• Hence, the present appeal was filed in the SC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice M. M. Sundresh, observed that as far as legal principles are involved an Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree, subject to the rigor of Section 47 read with Order XXI (Execution of Decrees and Orders) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
• SC while placing reliance on Union of India and Others v. N. Murugesan and Others (2022), wherein it was held by SC that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot and cold, the court called out the dilatory tactics adopted by respondents while setting aside the impugned order of the HC and restoring the order passed by the executing court in favour of appellant/ suit property owner.

What is Execution of a Decree?

• The term Execution as such is not defined under CPC but it signifies giving effect to a judgment or order of a court of justice.
• CPC deals with execution under Sections 36-74 and Order XXI.
• Section 38 mentions the Court by which decree may be executed — A decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it, or by the Court to which it is sent for execution.
• Section 47 of CPC provides that Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree —
  • (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
  • (3) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court.
  • Explanation I - For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.
• Explanation II -
  • (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and
  • (b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

The Delhi High Court (HC) has emphasized that the possession of a graduation degree by the wife should not automatically lead to the presumption that she is purposefully refraining from employment solely to secure interim maintenance in the matter of X v. Y.

What is the Background of the X v. Y Case?

• The parties to the suit got married in 1999, differences cropped up between the parties and the husband filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion in 2013.
• The husband had been depositing Rs.10,000/- per month in his wife’s bank account since 2013.
• The family court ordered to pay Maintenace of Rs 25000/- per month to the wife along with the litigation cost. The husband was also ordered to pay the penalty of Rs.1,000 per day on the interim maintenance.
• The amount being meagre, wife sought enhancement of pendente lite maintenance to Rs 1,25,000/- per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
• The husband filed a cross Appeal challenging the imposition of penalty of Rs.1,000/- per day on the interim maintenance and also sought reduction in Maintenance from Rs 25000/- per month to Rs 15000/- per month.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside the penalty of Rs.1,000 per day on the delayed payment of interim maintenance to the wife.
• The bench further while observing the wife, despite having a degree of B.Sc. has not been working, while the husband was a practicing Advocate refused to reduce the maintenance amount.

What is Maintenance Pendente Lite?

• Maintenance Pendente Lite means providing living expenses and financial support to the wife and children while the suit is pending between the parties.
• The concept of maintenance Pende Lite is dealt under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
  • Section 24 - Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings—Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.
  • Provided that the application for the payment of the expenses of the proceeding and such monthly sum during the proceeding, shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be.

What is Cross Appeal?

• The concept of cross appeal is provided under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC):

Order 41 - Appeals From Original Decrees

Rule 22 - Upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred separate appeal —

• • (1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also take any cross-objection] to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal provided he has filed such objection in the Appellate Court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow.
  • Explanation. —A respondent aggrieved by a finding of the Court in the judgment on which the decree appealed against is based may, under this rule, file cross-objection in respect of the decree in so far as it is based on that finding, notwithstanding that by reason of the decision of the Court on any other finding which is sufficient for the decision of the suit, the decree, is, wholly or in part, in favour of that respondent.

Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the case of Naseema Beevi v. Ameer Shahul, held that the wrong done under Section 19 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) includes both the act and its effects.

What was the Background of Naseema Beevi v. Ameer Shahul Case?

• The plaintiff is the mother of the deceased Nisamol who passed away on 2^nd June 2001 in New Delhi at the residences of defendants 1 and 2.
• The deceased Nisamol was the only earning member of the family.
• The defendants took Nisamol to Delhi in 2000 to work as a babysitter.
• In 2001, the defendant informed the plaintiff that Nisamol died due to blood cancer.
• The plaintiff filed a suit for compensation shattered by the death of her daughter.
• At Sub-Court, Nedumangad, a suit was instituted under Section 19 of CPC for a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 with interest from the defendants.
• The learned Sub Judge concluded that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and so the plaint was returned.
• Aggrieved by this order, an appeal is filed before the High Court of Kerala.
• The High Court stated that the Sub-Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try the Suit.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice Basant Balaji observed that a Sub Court in Kerala has the territorial jurisdiction to try a suit for compensating for a wrong committed in Delhi, as per the broader interpretation of wrong done under Section 19 of CPC, the effects of the wrong justified in establishing the jurisdiction in Kerala, where the plaintiff resided.
• The Court also held that in a suit for compensation for wrong done, mere injury or wrong done without anything more would not suffice to sustain claim of compensation. The wrong done cannot be interpreted in a narrow sense but has to be understood in the broader amplitude.
• The Court also relied upon the case of Ayyappan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr. (2009) for the purpose of interpreting the meaning of the term wrong occurring in Section 19 of CPC.
  • In this case, the Kerala High Court held that the wrong done includes the effect of the act and the resultant damage. If the act does not lead to any consequence or damage, such act may not be actionable. Therefore, the phrase wrong done occurring in Section 19 of CPC should be understood as including the effect of the act.

What is Section 19 of CPC?

• Section 19 of CPC deals with suits for compensation for wrongs to person or movables. It states that -
  • Where a suit is for compensation for wrong done to the person or to movable property, if the wrong was done within the local limits of the jurisdiction of one Court and the defendant resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, within the local limits of the jurisdiction of another Court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said Courts.
    Illustrations:
    (a) A, residing in Delhi, beats B in Calcutta. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.
    (b) A, residing in Delhi, publishes in Calcutta statements defamatory of B. B may sue A either in Calcutta or in Delhi.
• Section 19 applies only to actionable wrong to the person or to the movable property.
• The principle of this section is not applicable where the suit is against the government.