Search Judgments

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(B) – This case involves a husband and wife seeking a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Subordinate Judge dismissed their petition (HMOP No.77 of 2024) on the grounds that the wife was a Muslim, and the Act only applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, or Sikhs.

The revision petitioners argued that the wife, though born Muslim, married the husband according to Hindu customs at a Hindu temple. They contended that she had converted to Hinduism through her conduct, without a formal ceremony, as evidenced by the marriage and their petition asserting their Hindu faith.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 – This case involves a dispute between two brothers over a property originally allotted to their paternal grandfather via a partition deed in 1937. After subsequent partitions and sales, a remaining portion of the land became the subject of contention. The plaintiff, one of the brothers, filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, the other brother, from dealing with or alienating the property.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant and their mother relinquished their shares in the entire property in his favor through a release deed in 1996.

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Section 4(6)(b) – This writ petition challenges the order of the 1st respondent, which upheld the 2nd respondent’s decision to allow the 3rd respondent’s (employee) gratuity application. The petitioner (bank) had sought to forfeit the 3rd respondent’s gratuity due to alleged financial losses caused by him while working as a Senior Manager.

The bank alleged that the 3rd respondent sanctioned loans improperly, leading to a financial loss of approximately Rs. 9 crores.

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Section 12 & 18 – This case involves a dispute between landlords (Appellants) and a tenant (Respondent) over non-payment of rent for two commercial properties in Kochi, Kerala. The landlords filed eviction petitions under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, due to the tenant’s failure to pay rent. They also obtained a money decree for the arrears. Subsequently, the landlords filed applications under Section 12(1) of the Act, 1965, leading to orders directing the tenant to pay the outstanding rent.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 469 & Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 81, 82(a) and 83 – This revision petition challenges the order dismissing the petitioners’ discharge petition in C.C No.9617 of 2021, where they are accused of offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, and 469 of the IPC and Sections 81, 82(a), and 83 of the Registration Act. The complaint alleges that the petitioners fraudulently transferred property, misrepresented facts in documents, and caused revenue loss to the government.

The prosecution contends that the petitioners misrepresented Rajammal as their father’s wife in sale and settlement deeds, despite their mother being Pattammal. This was allegedly done to undervalue properties and evade stamp duty, causing financial loss to the government.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 302, 392, and 34 – This case involves an appeal against a judgment by the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruppur, convicting the appellant (A2) under Sections 392 and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment, respectively, for robbery and murder of one Ramachandran. The prosecution’s case rests on the claim that A2, along with two others (A1 and A3), committed the crime with the common intention of dacoity, resulting in the death of the victim.

The key evidence included the testimony of an alleged eyewitness (PW2) and a Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted by a Judicial Magistrate (PW9). However, PW2 failed to identify A2 during the TIP.

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63(c) – This case involves a petition (O.P.No. 590 of 2013, later T.O.S.No. 49 of 2016) filed by A.Dhandayuthapani, his wife, son, and daughter, seeking Letters of Administration with Will annexed for a Will dated 09.06.2004, allegedly executed by A. Meenakshi (deceased).

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 63, 68, 69 & Indian Succession Act, 1925 – This appeal challenges the trial court’s decision in a partition suit. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of legal heirship and partition of properties (A & B), claiming equal shares for themselves and the defendants as legal representatives of their parents. The second defendant contested, asserting the second plaintiff wasn’t the first plaintiff’s daughter and presenting a Will (Ex. B1) bequeathing the B schedule property to him.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 22 Rule 4 & 10 – This order addresses applications filed by the plaintiffs in C.S.No.216 of 2010, following the death of the sole defendant, Mrs. Rajalakshmi Sunkavally. The applications seek to bring on record the legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased defendant and also the assignees/transferees on whom the defendant’s rights have devolved.

A.No.907 of 2025: Filed under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, seeking to bring the LRs on record.