List of Current Affairs

Source: Madras High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Madras High Court in the matter of Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v. The State of Tamil Nadu  has held that in non-cognizable and bailable offences it is required to take the prior permission of the magistrate to file a complaint. 

What was the Background of the Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v The State of Tamil Nadu  Case? 

• In October 2024, a local vulcanizing shop owner experienced the theft of three lorry tyres valued at approximately Rs. 3,000.  
• After reviewing CCTV footage from the shop, the owner identified Jebaraj, the petitioner, as the person who had taken the tyres. 
• The shop owner subsequently filed a police complaint, which led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, (BNS).  
• The specifics of the case revolved around the value of the stolen property.  
• With the tyres being worth Rs. 3,000 - which is less than Rs. 5,000 - the theft technically qualified as a minor offense under the new legal framework.  
• The petitioner sought an application for anticipatory bail, and quashing of FIR before the Madras High Court 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Madras High Court made the following observations: 
  • The offense involved theft of old tyres worth Rs. 3,000, which falls under Section 303(2) of BNS. 
  • The court noted that for theft of property valued less than Rs. 5,000 and for a first-time offender, the punishment is community service. 
  • The court observed that for such a low-value theft, the offense is: 
    • Non-cognizable  
    • Bailable 
    • Requires prior Magistrate's order for FIR registration under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
  • The court found that the FIR was illegally registered without obtaining appropriate orders from the Magistrate with jurisdiction to try such a case. 
  • While technically the anticipatory bail petition was not maintainable (since the offense is bailable), the court chose to exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• The Madras High Court quashed the FIR against the petitioner effectively nullifying the criminal proceeding due to procedural irregularities in its registration. 

What is Section 303 of BNS?

• This section is covered under Chapter XVII which states the provisions for offences against the property. 
• Section 303 of BNS clearly states the provisions for Theft as: 
  • Subsection (1) states that whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft. 
  • The subsection is accompanied with the following explanations as: 
    • A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.  
    • A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft. 
    • A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.  
    • A person who by any means causes an animal to move is said to move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal.  
    • The consent mentioned in this section may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied. 
  • It is further explained with several illustrations some of them are: 
    • Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of a warehouse, till Z shall return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Z’s possession. It could not therefore be taken out of Z’s possession, and A has not committed theft, though he may have committed criminal breach of trust. 
    • A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweler, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not owing to the jeweler any debt for which the jeweler might lawfully detain the watch as a security, enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Z’s hand, and carries it away. Here A, though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed theft, in as much as what he did was not done dishonestly. 
    • A asks charity from Z’s wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to belong to Z, her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z’s wife is authorized to give away alms. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.  
    • A is the paramour of Z’s wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to her husband Z, and to be such property as she has no authority from Z to give. If A takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft.  
    • A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A’s own property, takes that property out of Z’s possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft. 
  • Subsection (2) states that whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both and in case of second or subsequent conviction of any person under this section, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five years and with fine. 
  • This subsection further has a proviso clause which states that: 
    • In cases of theft where the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees, and a person is convicted for the first time, shall upon return of the value of property or restoration of the stolen property, shall be punished with community service.

Source: Jharkhand High Court 

Why in News? 

The Jharkhand High Court states that amendments to pleadings that alter the fundamental nature of a suit or prejudice accrued rights of the opposing party are impermissible, especially after the conclusion of evidence. Justice Subhash Chand observed that such amendments, including changes to the source of title claimed by the plaintiff, are prejudicial to the defendant.  

• The case involved a suit seeking the cancellation of a sale deed allegedly executed in violation of Section 46(1)(b) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. 

What was the Background of Arun Kumar Sanganeria v. Balram Mahato Case? 

• Balram Mahato filed a lawsuit against Kiran Devi Tulsiyan and Arun Kumar Sanganeria concerning a property dispute in Jharkhand. 
• Mahato originally claimed the property was inherited through a lineage traced from Hargovind Mahato to Amrit Mahato, and then to himself as the legal heir. 
• The lawsuit challenged a sale deed executed by one defendant in favor of the other defendant's wife, alleging it violated Section 46(1)(b) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act, 1908. 
• After completing pleadings and evidence, Mahato sought to amend his original plaint by replacing "Dalgovind Mahato" with "Chutu Mahato" in several key paragraphs. 
• The proposed amendments also included adding vague references to previous sale deeds potentially contravening the CNT Act, without providing specific details. 
• The defendants strongly opposed these amendments, arguing they would fundamentally alter the original case and prejudice their rights, especially since evidence had already been recorded. 
• The proposed changes would essentially rewrite the property's inheritance narrative and the basis of Mahato's original claim. 
• This dispute about procedural amendments became the central issue that ultimately reached the Jharkhand High Court for resolution. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The High Court meticulously examined the proposed amendments and found them to fundamentally alter the nature of the original plaint, particularly with respect to the source and lineage of property ownership. 
• The Court observed a critical legal principle that amendments to pleadings cannot be permitted if they substantially change the core nature of the original suit or prejudice the accrued rights of the opposing party. 
• The proposed amendment was deemed particularly problematic because it sought to modify the property's inheritance narrative after the conclusion of evidence, which would effectively invalidate the cross-examination and evidence already on record. 
• The Court states that the amendment's vagueness was a significant concern, particularly the plaintiff's attempt to add references to unspecified previous sale deeds without providing precise details such as dates, parties involved, or specific circumstances. 
• Justice Subhash Chand specifically noted that such amendments would cause irreparable prejudice to the defendants' rights, which had crystallized through the evidentiary process, and therefore cannot be legally sanctioned. 
• Ultimately, the Court held that permitting such an amendment would be tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to introduce an entirely new case after the evidence stage, which is procedurally impermissible under established legal principles. 

What is Orde VI Rule 17 of CPC ? 

• Judicial Discretion in Amendment: 
  • The court has broad discretion to allow amendments to pleadings at any stage of proceedings. 
  • The primary objective is to ensure justice and determine the real questions in controversy between parties. 
  • Amendments are not a matter of absolute right but are subject to the court's judicious consideration. 
• Conditions for Amendment: 
  • Amendments can be made at any stage before trial commences. 
  • The court will consider whether the amendment:  
    • Serves the interests of justice. 
    • Helps determine the actual disputes between parties. 
    • Does not cause undue prejudice to the other party. 
  • Limitation on Post-Trial Amendments. 
  • After trial commencement, amendments are restricted. 
  • An amendment is only allowed if the party can prove:  
    • They exercised due diligence 
    • The matter could not have been raised earlier 
    • There are compelling reasons for the amendment 
• Guiding Principles: 
  • The court's primary concern is facilitating a fair resolution. 
  • Technical obstacles should not prevent substantive justice. 
  • Amendments should help clarify and narrow the real issues in dispute. 
• Judicial Considerations: 
  • Potential impact on the other party. 
  • Stage of proceedings. 
  • Reasons for the proposed amendment. 
  • Whether the amendment would cause irreparable prejudice. 
  • The bona fide nature of the amendment. 
• Practical Implications: 
  • Encourages comprehensive and accurate pleadings. 
  • Provides flexibility to correct inadvertent omissions. 
  • Prevents technical defects from defeating substantive justice. 
  • Requires parties to be diligent and forthright in presenting their case. 
• Recommendation for Parties: 
  • Prepare pleadings meticulously from the outset. 
  • If amendments are necessary, provide clear and compelling reasons. 
  • Be prepared to demonstrate due diligence. 
  • Understand that the court's primary goal is determining the actual controversy. 

What is the Procedure for Drafting an Amendment of plaint? 

• Preliminary Assessment: 
  • Carefully identify the specific provisions or sections of the original plaint that require amendment. 
  • Critically analyze the necessity and legal implications of the proposed changes. 
  • Ensure the proposed amendments align with the core claims and relief sought in the original plaint. 
• Draft Amendments: 
  • Prepare a detailed draft of the proposed amendments. 
  • Articulate changes with precision, clarity, and legal coherence. 
  • Ensure the amendments do not fundamentally alter the original cause of action. 
  • Maintain consistency with existing legal arguments and evidence. 
• Legal Consultation: 
  • Seek professional legal advice to review the proposed amendments. 
  • Obtain expert opinion on the legal viability and potential implications of the changes. 
  • Validate that the amendments comply with procedural requirements and substantive law. 
• Documentation Preparation: 
  • Integrate the approved amendments into the original plaint document. 
  • Clearly mark and highlight the specific modifications. 
  • Prepare multiple copies of the amended plaint for court filing and service. 
• Court Filing: 
  • Submit the amended plaint to the appropriate court where the case is pending. 
  • Pay requisite court fees associated with filing amendments. 
  • Ensure compliance with procedural guidelines for filing amendments. 
• Service of Amended Plaint: 
  • Serve a copy of the amended plaint to the opposing party. 
  • Use prescribed methods of service like personal delivery or registered post. 
  • Maintain proof of service for court records. 
• Judicial Consideration: 
  • Await the court's discretionary decision on allowing the amendments. 
  • Be prepared to argue the necessity and justification of the proposed changes. 
  • Demonstrate that the amendments serve the interests of justice and do not prejudice the opposing party. 

Grounds For Seeking Amendment of Plaint 

• Rectification of typographical errors or inaccuracies. 
• Inclusion of additional facts or claims arising after the filing of the original plaint. 
• Change in circumstances or discovery of new evidence. 
• Correction of technical or procedural defects in the original plaint. 

Section 46 in the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 

• The section deals with the process of commuting (converting) praedial conditions during a preliminary inquiry into village rent rates. Praedial conditions typically refer to non-monetary obligations that tenants traditionally had to fulfill to their landlords. 
• Revenue Officer's Responsibilities: 
  • Ascertain the praedial conditions for each class of tenants in the village 
  • Record a finding on what praedial conditions are renderable by the tenants 
  • Determine the cash value of these praedial conditions 
  • Prepare a statement in the format specified in Schedule II of the Act 
• Recording of Cash Value: 
• The commuted cash value of praedial conditions will be:  
  • Recorded separately from rent 
  • Included in the total rent payable by raiyats (tenant cultivators) 
  • For tenure-holders, entered in the khewat (land revenue record) 
• Guiding Principles: The Revenue Officer must follow the provisions of Section 111 of the Act, with special attention to the proviso in Section 105(3). 
• Special Consideration: Praedial conditions already payable in cash by custom or contract will continue to be subject to the proviso in Section 105(3) of the Act. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that if a person fails to conduct proper inquiries about the title, they cannot be deemed to be bona fide purchaser under Section 19 (b) of Specific Relief Act, 1963.      

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Manjit Singh & Anr v. Darshana Devi & Ors. 

What was the Background of Manjit Singh & Anr v. Darshana Devi & Ors. Case?  

• An unregistered sale deed was entered into between the Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff) and the original Defendant no 1 (owner of suit property). 
• After this agreement was entered, the Defendant no 1 transferred the suit property in favor of Defendants 2 and 3. 
• The Respondent no 1 filed a suit and prayed for specific performance. 
• The Trial Court allowed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. 
• Consequently, the subsequent purchasers (Defendant 2 and 3) preferred first appeal before the District Court where the decree passed by the Trial Court was quashed and set aside. 
• Further, the plaintiff filed second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) before the High Court. 
• The High Court held that the subsequent purchasers in this case cannot be categorized as  boa fide purchasers under Section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). 
• Thus, the matter was before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations?  

• Section 19 (b) of SRA is the one on which strong reliance is placed by the parties in this case. 
• The Court cited the case (RK Mohammed Ubaidullah v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (2000)) where this provision was interpreted, and it was held that Section 19 (b) is an exception from the general rule and the onus is on the subsequent purchaser to prove that they are bona fide purchasers for value.  
• The Court further observed that if an act has been done in good faith it must have been done with due care and caution and there should not be any dishonesty or negligence. 
• The Court subsequently held that in the present case it cannot be said that the subsequent purchasers are bona fide purchasers. 
• It was observed that if a subsequent purchaser fails to conduct proper inquiries about interest or title it cannot be said that he is a ‘bona fide purchaser’. 
• Hence, the Court held that no error was committed by the High Court in passing the above order. 
• Consequently, the appeal in this case failed and was dismissed. 

What is Section 19 (b) of SRA?

• Section 19 of SRA lays down persons against whom relief of specific performance can be enforced. 
• As per the provisions following are the persons against whom relief of specific performance can be enforced.

• Section 19 (b) of SRA refers to a person claiming under someone else by a title. 
  • The title arises after the original contract is made. 
  • It Excludes transferees who:  
    • Have paid value (money). 
    • Acted in good faith. 
    • Had no notice of the original contract. 
• In the case of Maharaj Singh & Ors v. Karan Singh (2024) the Court held that where the defendants who are subsequent purchasers fail to prove that they entered into the sale deed in good faith and without notice of the suit agreement, in view of Section 19(b), a decree for specific performance can be passed against such defendants.

What are the Landmark Judgments on Bona fide Subsequent Purchaser?

• Daniels v. Davison (1809): 
  • If a tenant is in possession under a lease or agreement, a purchaser of the property must inquire about the terms of possession. 
  • A tenant in possession, holding both a lease and an agreement to purchase, has an equitable interest in the property. 
  • This equity protects the tenant's rights against a subsequent purchaser who fails to inquire about the tenant's possession. 
  • The subsequent purchaser's claim is repelled due to their lack of inquiry into the nature of possession.
• Bhiwandi and Nizampur v. Kailash Sizing Works (1974): 
  • The Court in this case observed that there is a distinction between honest blundering or carelessness and dishonest actions. 
  • An authority is not honest if they suspect wrongdoing but fail to investigate further. 
  • The Court held that Recklessness and mala fides (bad faith) are treated equally under the law, as both focus on the actor's actual state of mind. 
  • Though law equates recklessness and bad faith, their moral blameworthiness may differ.
• Kailash Etc Works v. Munlity B & N (1968): 
  • A person cannot be considered honest if they act without fairness or uprightness. 
  • Acting with knowledge or awareness that harm is likely to result, or with wanton or willful negligence, is inconsistent with honesty. 
  • Whether a person acted honestly depends on the specific facts of each case. 
  • The Court held that the essence of good faith is that: 
    • It Requires an honest determination based on facts. 
    • Precludes: 
      • Pretence or deceit. 
      • Unfairness or lack of uprightness. 
      • Wanton or willful negligence.