ALLIED LAWS

20. Additional Evidence – Translated document would not amount to
additional Evidence. [Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Or. 41 R. 27]

Chandreshwar Bhuthnath Devasthan vs. Baboy Matiram
Varenkar  (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases
548

The Defendant
in support of the title had filed certain documents in Portuguese language in
trial court. The English translation of the said document was submitted before
the First appellate court. The first appellate court in para 43 of its judgment
observed that there was no application filed under the provisions of Order XLI
Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the CPC’) for producing
the additional translation of the original document. As such translation could
not be taken on record prayer had been disallowed for taking English version on
record, which the High Court upheld.

It was held
that the translated version of the already filed document could not be said to
be constituting additional evidence as the original document was already on
record of the trial court. It was thus in order to facilitate the just decision
of the matter and to enable the court to read the document, its translated
version had been filed which ought to have been taken on record without any
demur by the court below. Interest of justice required it to be taken on record
being document recording title. Accordingly, the matter was set aside to the
first appellate authority to re-assess the evidence taken into consideration.

21. Conditional Gift – Cancellation during lifetime is held to be
proper. [Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 122, 123]

S. Sarojini Amma vs. Velayudhan Pillai Sreekumar AIR 2018 Supreme Court
5232

In the facts of
the case, in expectation that, Respondent would look after Appellant and her
husband and also for some consideration, appellant executed a purported gift
deed in favour of Respondent. Gift deed clearly stated that, gift would take
effect after death of Appellant and her husband.

It observed
that a conditional gift with no recital of acceptance and no evidence in proof
of acceptance, where possession remains with the donor as long as he is alive,
does not become complete during lifetime of the donor. When a gift is
incomplete and title remains with the donor the deed of gift might be
cancelled. Moreover, a conditional gift only becomes complete on compliance of
the conditions in the deed.

It was held
that, in the present case, since the appellant applied for cancellation before
the death of the appellant, there was no completed gift of the property in
question by the Appellant to the Respondent and the Appellant was within her
right in cancelling the deed.

22. Consumer – Person purchasing goods for self employment is considered
as a ‘consumer’. [Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d)]

Paramount Digital Color Lab and Ors. vs. Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
AIR 2018 Supreme
Court 3449

Complaint was
filed where the State Commission directed Respondents to pay compensation on
account of loss, mental and physical torture and expenses of Appellants. Appeal
was filed by Respondents which was allowed on ground that Appellants should not
be considered as consumers.

The facts show
that the appellants being unemployed graduates decided to start a business of
photography in partnership for self-employment and for their livelihood. For
such purpose, they purchased a developing and printing machine which eventually
failed to work due to a defect in a pre-loaded software. A contention was made
by the respondents that the Appellants do not come under the definition of
‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, since the appellant
intended to use the goods for ‘Commercial Purposes’, which the ‘Act’
specifically prohibits.

It was observed that the point to be considered was whether the
Appellants had purchased the machine in question for “commercial
purpose” or exclusively for the purposes of earning their livelihood by
means of “self-employment”.

It was held by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Appellants purchased the machine for their
own utility, personal handling and for their small venture which they had
embarked upon to make a livelihood. The same is distinct from large-scale
manufacturing’ or processing activity carried on for huge profits. There is no
close nexus between the transaction of purchase of the machine and the alleged
large-scale activity carried on for earning profit. Since the Appellants had
got no employment and they were unemployed graduates, that too without
finances, it is but natural for them to raise a loan to start the business of
photography on a small scale for earning their livelihood. Accordingly, the
appeals were allowed.

23. Hindu Law – Under the principles of prestine Hindu Law, daughters
would not inherit properties of their father if there are male survivors and
widows. [Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Section 14]

Kunnath Narayani and Ors. vs. Kunnath Kochan and Ors. AIT 2018 Kerala
141 Full Bench

There was a
difference of opinion between the different schools of Hindu law as to the
nature of the right that would be inherited by a daughter. The Courts in Bengal
and Madras have consistently decided in a series of decisions that the daughter
takes only a qualified estate, though the courts of Bombay have taken the view
in some cases that the daughter inherits the property absolutely. Where the
daughter succeeds to the estate of the father in the absence of male survivors
under the principles of pristine Hindu law, the estate would be a qualified one
and the same would certainly ripen into an absolute one by virtue of section 14
of the Act. Hence the full bench was constituted in order to resolve such
issue.

Before the Full
bench, the facts stated that the Plaintiff is the sister of the defendants. The
suit was filed raising the contentions that the suit property belonged to the
father of the parties, Perachan, who died prior to enforcement of the Hindu
Succession Act. The deceased was survived by his wife, his sons, the defendants
and his daughters; they contended that since the plaintiff (daughter) and her
sister were unmarried, they acquired limited ownership in the suit properties
on the death of their father; they also contended that the said limited
ownership became absolute ownership by virtue of section 14 of the Act; further
they contended that the plaintiff’s sister died unmarried and issueless on
10-9-1972; that the mother died on 22-8-1985 and that since the plaintiff’s
sister and mother are survived by the plaintiff and defendants, the plaintiff
is entitled to l/3^rd share over the suit properties which are in
joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants. As defendants did not accede
to the demand of the plaintiff to partition the property, the suit was laid.

Defendants
contested the suit contending mainly that they being the male children of
Perachan (father), the suit properties devolved on them exclusively on the
death of their father in terms of the principles of Hindu Mitakshara Law
applicable to them and they are in exclusive possession of the same.

The Full bench
held that Hindu Woman’s Right to Property Act was introduced in circumstances
to give better rights to woman in respect of property. However, said statute
only applies to Hindu widows and not to other Hindu females. Rights to Hindu
females are governed by principles of Hindu Law till the Act came into force.
Under the principles of Mithakshara Law, self-acquired properties and separate
properties of the Hindu male devolves in the heirs by succession and not to his
coparceners. But, daughter, mother and to grandmother were recognised as heirs
only to one who died without male issues. As regards order of succession among
them, daughter does not inherit until all widows are dead and gone. Under
principles of Hindu Law, daughters would not inherit properties of their father
if there are male survivors and widows. In case where daughter succeeds to
estate of father in absence of male survivors under principles of Hindu Law,
estate would be qualified one and same would certainly ripen into absolute one
by virtue of section 14 of Act.

In the facts of the present case, the plaintiff being the daughter of
Perachan was not covered by the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act. The Court
held that as the plaintiff was unmarried at the time when the succession
opened, she had only a right to claim maintenance out of the income from the
properties till her marriage. When the plaintiff has not acquired any right in
the property, as explained in the various decisions of the Apex Court and High
Courts referred to in the case, the application of section 14 of the Act does
not arise in her case.

24.  Partnership Firm – Properties allotted to
Partners vide a valid dissolution deed – Transfer not valid if no valid deed of
Conveyance. [Partnership Act, 1932; Section 48, 14; Registration Act, 1908;
Section 17(1)]

State of Kerala and Ors. vs. V.D. Vincent AIR 2018 Kerala 199

The facts of the case show that there were partners in a Firm who were
entitled to a transfer of registry of the properties accruing to them
consequent to the dissolution of the Firm, without there being a registered
document, transferring the interest of the partner, who had the ownership of
the property, prior to it being brought into the stock of the Firm.

It was observed that a dissolution deed, that merely allocates items of
immovable properties to a partner, proportionate to his share in the assets of
the firm without conveying title of the said property to him, does not confer
on the said partner a right to obtain mutation of the property in his name,
under the Transfer of Registry Rules.

It was held that only a
valid deed, duly registered, can convey the title over immovable property to
the writ petitioners, and it is only thereafter that they can seek a transfer
of registry in respect of the said items of immovable property.