We have noted with concern that the Special Court has unnecessarily spent valuable public time in writing the lengthy judgment for disposing of the claims of the appellants which, we feel, could have been decided by a brief but speaking orders. Brevity of orders on application of mind and not the length of the order is the criterion for adjudicating the rights of the parties which are otherwise subject to the decision of a Civil Court.
Keywords:-Justification and propriety AIR 2001 SC 972 : (2001) 1 SCR 959 : (2001) 3 SCC 54 : JT 2001 (2) SC 397 : (2001) 1 SCALE 685 : (2001) CriLJ SC […]
AIR 2001 SC 2383 : (2001) 3 SCR 777 : (2001) 6 SCC 118 : JT 2001 (5) SC 280 : (2001) 4 SCALE 241 : (2001) CriLJ SC 3302 (SUPREME COURT […]
KEYWORDS:- MAINTENANCE OF MUSLIM WIFE DATE: 28 September, 2001 ACTS:- Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986-Section 125 CrPC. Supreme Court of India Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India Author: […]
KEYWORDS:-Rectification of divorce decree- DATE:- 28-02-2001 ACTS:- Special Marriage Act, 1954—Section 28-CPC SECTION 152 AIR 2001 SC 1084 : (2001) 2 SCR 207 : (2001) 4 SCC 181 : JT 2001 (3) SC […]
KEYWORDS:- PRIVATE PROSECUTOR- VICTIM-NOTICE- The said provision falls within the Chapter titled General Provisions as to Inquiries and Trials. When such a role is permitted to be played by a private person, […]
The scope of interference in the matter of policy framed by the Government by courts is well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2001) 3 SCC 635 (Ugar […]
It is well settled that court fee has to be paid on the plaint as framed and not on plaint as it ought to have been framed -SC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ( Before : R. C. Lahoti, J; Brijesh Kumar, J ) KAMALESHWAR KISHORE SINGH — Appellant Vs. PARAS NATH SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent Decided on […]
In State of U.P. and Another v. Kamla Palace, (2000) 1 SCC 557, this Court, while considering a fiscal statute in relation to Article 14 of the Constitution, has stated as under: […]
If property belongs to Government for acquisition of easementary right by prescription user of “30 years” is required.
It is settled principle of law that what has not been conferred in the plaint cannot be proved. Only right of easement by way of prescription has been pleaded, alleging that Plaintiff was using the land of Plot No. 164 for 20 years. It is pertinent to mention here that at the end of Section 15 of Indian Easement Act, 1882, which pertains to acquisition by prescription, it is specifically mentioned that if the property, over which a right is claimed, belongs to the Government, the word ’20 years’ shall be read as ’30 years’. As such, in respect of a Government land mere user for 20 years does not confer any easementary right by way of prescription to the Plaintiff, as he has nowhere pleaded that he used the land for 30 years or more.