Allied Laws

11.  Delay in filing objections – Period of
Limitation only applicable to the initial filing of objections and not to
re-filing. [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 34]

Northern Railway vs. Pioneer Publicity
Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 11 Supreme Court Cases 234

There
was a refusal to condone the delay of 65 days in re-filing the objections u/s.
34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act). Admittedly, the
objections originally were filed within the time stipulated u/s. 34 of the Act.
However, since there were objections, time was granted by the Deputy Registrar
of the High Court to remove the objections within a period of 7 days. This was not
done. Eventually, the appellant re-filed the matter where there was a delay of
65 days.

The
Court held that section has no Application in re-filing the Petition but only
applies to the initial filing of the objections u/s. 34 of the Act.

12.  Hindu Law 
–   Joint   Hindu  
Family   –   Family Settlement
– Outsider can be a party to such family settlement. [Transfer of Property Act,
1882; Section5]

Thimma Reddy vs.
Chandrashekara Reddy and Ors. AIR 2018 KARNATAKA 54

The
plaintiffs 1 – 3(sons of first defendant) and plaintiffs 4 – 5 (sons of second
defendant) pleaded that their grandfather owned a number of immovable
properties. He died intestate. No partition had taken place during his
lifetime. On 8.9.1986 there took place a partition among defendants 1 to 3 and
in this partition, properties described in schedule ‘C’ properties fell to the
share of third defendant. But, the third defendant was a stranger to the
family. Since he was not a member of the joint family, he was not entitled to
share. The defendants 1 and 2 colluded with the third defendant and entered
into a partition and thus the schedule ‘C’ property was allotted to him. This
allotment of ‘C’ schedule property to third defendant was alleged to be
illegal.

Reliance
was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision of Kale and others vs. Deputy
Director of Consolidation and others AIR 1976 SC 807, wherein it was
observed that it is absolutely clear that the word ‘family’ cannot be construed
in a narrow sense so as to confine the parties to the family arrangement only
to persons who have a legal title to the property.

It was
held by the High Court that it is clear that a family settlement or arrangement
need not be necessarily among the members of joint family having a right of
succession, but even an outsider to the family can be given a share.
Requirement is that such an arrangement must be fair and bona fide.

13.
Mesne Profits –Property not renovated by lessee – Damages to be paid to lessor
on service of notice.
[Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Sec. 108]

The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited (BSNL) vs. Radhika Chettri AIR 2018 (NOC) 285 (SIK.)

Respondent,
the lessor, is the absolute owner of the flat. The said property was leased out
to the Appellant, the lessee, for a monthly rent for a period of 5 years. A
Clause existed in the Lease Deed that the lessee shall have the option of
renewing the lease of the said premises for further periods, on giving notice
of such intention, to the lessor at least three months prior to expiration of
the lease. The lessee, however, failed to take necessary steps as provided,
hence on expiry of the lease period, the respondent’s husband vide letter, and
requested the appellant to either increase the house rent by 30% or to vacate
the occupied premises. The appellant, vide letter intimated the respondent that
the suit property would be handed over and the said letter be treated as
“Notice” of three months. That, on checking the suit premises it was
found to be in a dilapidated condition which the appellant was bound to repair
before handing over.

In view
of sections108(h) & (m), the court held that T.P. Act requires that damages
caused to the suit property be made good within three months, which was not
complied with in the instant case. The term “mesne profit” includes
not only the profits which the person in wrongful possession actually received,
but also those which he might have received with ordinary diligence, but does
not include profits due to improvements made by person in wrongful possession.
Given a wider connotation it would mean that which the Appellant has lost on
account of the wrongful act of the Respondent, in other words the amount the
Respondent might reasonably be expected to have made, had he been in
possession. Hence, the Respondent is entitled to mesne profits.

14.  Property – Right of a Female – Scope and
Object of  Section14(1).   [Hindu 
Succession  Act,  1956; Section
14(1)]

Daulatarao Ramachandra Jadhav and Ors. vs.
Janabai Anandarao Jadhav and Ors. AIR 2018 KARNATAKA 62

It was
observed by the High Court in regard to section 14(1) that under the Hindu
Succession Act, it is clear that section 14(1) has a very wide and extensive
application and has to be read in a comprehensive manner as the Act overrides
old law governing the properties of the female. The Act confers full heritable
capacity and absolute ownership on the female heir. This section dispenses with
the traditional limitations of conferring limited estate on the female Hindu to
hold and transmit the property. It should be borne in mind that under Hindu Law
which in operation prior to the coming into force of this Act, a woman’s
ownership of property was hedged in by certain delimitations on her right of
disposal and also on her testamentary power in respect of that property and
also with reference to her absolute ownership. By virtue of interpretation of
the provision u/s. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, in the enactment, the above
said barricades have been completely removed and the Act presupposes if any
property possessed by a female Hindu whether acquired before or after
commencement of the Act becomes absolute property of the said lady, if the said
property was given in recognition of her pre-existing right.

15.
Will – Attestation – Two witnesses mandatory – May not be present at the same
time. [Evidence Act, 1872; Section 68]

Sanjeev Juneja vs. State
and Ors. AIR 2018 DELHI 79

The Hon’ble High Court held
that the law requires attestation by minimum two witnesses, it is not mandatory
that both must have been present at the time when the testator executed the
document, the presence of the testator being more important when the witnesses
attest and further that, for proof of such execution and attestation, the
testimony of only one of such witnesses is enough, that also only if such
witness is alive and available.