Search Judgments

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8; Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 3, 27 & Article 110 – The appellant, a daughter, filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of properties against her brother and his children. The properties originally belonged to their father, Krishnasamy Gounder. The appellant claimed a 50% share as a Class-I legal heir, asserting the properties were self-acquired by her father. The defendants contended that the properties were ancestral, an oral family arrangement existed where the appellant relinquished her rights, and the suit was barred by limitation and non-joinder of necessary parties.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order I Rule 10, Order XXII Rule 10(1), Order XXII Rule (3) – This Civil Revision Petition was filed against the dismissal of I.A.No.696 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2012 by the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi. The application sought to implead the petitioner as the 2nd Plaintiff in the suit, based on Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.

The original suit involved a declaration and permanent injunction sought by Manickammal, claiming ownership based on a Gift Settlement Deed from her husband. The defendants contested the validity of the deed, asserting her husband’s lack of title.

Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 25(b), 25(d) and 40(1) – This case involves an appeal against a judgment from the Additional Commercial Court at Egmore, which had returned a plaint under Order VII Rule 10(1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) due to improper valuation and insufficient court fees.

The appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit seeking a declaration that a guarantee deed worth Rs. 30 crores, executed in favor of IndusInd Bank, was void and unenforceable, along with a permanent injunction against the bank from pursuing claims based on the deed. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.

Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 68 & 69 – This Second Appeal was filed against the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which decreed the plaintiff’s suit for partition based on a Will. The appellant/defendant challenged the genuineness and validity of the Will, arguing that it was not proven according to law. The appellant contended that the plaintiff failed to examine the attesting witnesses as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the expert opinion questioned the signature’s authenticity. The plaintiff argued that one attesting witness was untraceable, and the signatures of the deceased attesting witnesses were identified by their wives, fulfilling the requirements of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 153, 153A, 505(1)(b) – The case originates from a speech by a Tamil Nadu minister advocating for the “eradication” of Sanathana Dharma, drawing parallels to diseases like dengue and malaria. The petitioner, a BJP IT Wing National President, shared a video of the minister’s speech on X (formerly Twitter), questioning whether this implied a call for genocide against the 80% of the Indian population who follow Sanathana Dharma.

A complaint was filed, alleging that the petitioner distorted the minister’s speech with malicious intent to incite violence between groups. The prosecution argued that the petitioner’s post instigated the majority Sanathana Dharma followers against those who do not follow it.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Section 482 – This case concerns a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings in S.C. No.48 of 2025 before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. The case originates from an FIR filed in 2012, alleging that the petitioners obstructed traffic, abused and assaulted police officers, and damaged a police vehicle.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 376(1), 511 and 451 and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (POA Act) – An appeal against a judgment by the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Namakkal, convicting the appellant for offenses under Section 376(1) r/w 511 IPC (attempt to rape) and Section 451 IPC (house trespass). The victim, belonging to the Arunthathiyar community (Scheduled Caste), alleged that the appellant, belonging to the Vettuva Gounder community (Most Backward Class), forcibly entered her house and attempted to rape her while she was alone.

The appellant argued that he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry and that inconsistencies existed in the prosecution’s case, including doubts about the timing and location of the victim’s statement, the seizure of evidence, and the lack of corroborating evidence from neighbors despite the incident occurring in a row house. Medical evidence was also contested, with claims that injuries could have been natural occurrences.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 12 & 16 – This appeal challenges the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, which granted specific performance of a sale agreement. The agreement, dated 25.07.2010, was between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant for the sale of land. The plaintiff claimed the 1st defendant delayed the sale, while the 1st defendant argued that the 2nd defendant (his daughter) also had a share in the property and did not consent to the sale.

The trial court framed issues including whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and whether the agreement was binding on the 2nd defendant.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 28 – These revision petitions stemmed from orders in a suit for specific performance, specifically concerning execution proceedings. The core issue revolves around an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act seeking rescission of a contract due to alleged non-compliance by the decree holder. A prior sale agreement existed, and later, a fresh agreement was made with an increased sale consideration. The decree holder initiated execution based on the original decree without initially disclosing the subsequent agreement.

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 13(1)(a) – This case involves an appeal against a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement. The plaintiff (1st respondent) sued for specific performance based on an agreement with defendants 1-3, where the 1st defendant agreed to sell a flat allotted to him by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Defendants 4 and 5, the daughter and son-in-law of the 1st defendant, contested the suit, arguing the agreement was unenforceable due to restrictions on alienation in the Housing Board’s regulations and the lease-cum-sale agreement.

The plaintiff claimed to have paid the initial amount to the 1st defendant and continued paying monthly installments to the Housing Board, as agreed.