Trace Your Case

Categories
Theory of Relevancy

Ronny v. State of Maharashtra. 1998 3 SCC 1251

ISSUE:

What would be the effect of Identification of the Accused by the witness for the first time in the court, sans any Test Identification Parade?

Secondly, what would be the effect of the no-compliance of the procedure under Section 100 (4) and Section 166 (3) and 166(4)?

Whether the charge of Rape under Section 376 IPC has been made out against the Appellants-Accused?

Whether in the present case, awarding of the death sentence to the Appellant-Accused, is justified?

RULE:

Section 100(4) and Section 166(3) and 166(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Theory of Relevancy

Dhana v. State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220.

ISSUE:

Whether the appellant was the assailant who had raped and murdered the defence-less young Girl?

Whether the appellant had a motive to commit the alleged crime?

Whether the case falls under the rarest of the rare cases?

Whether this case establishes the statement of circumstantial evidence to be admissible in the court of law?

RULE:

The question of law revolves around the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in the absence of absolute evidence. According to Indian Evidence Act, 1872, circumstantial evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It relates to a series of facts other than the fact sough to be proved it is the evidence that is drawn not from direct observation of the fact at issue but from events or circumstances surround it is a proof of a fact which tends to prove whether something is true or not. It is usually a theory supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Testamentary succession in Muslim Law

Hafeeza Bibi and Ors. v. Shaikh Farid (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors., 2011(5) SCALE 371

ISSUE:

Whether the hiba dated February 5, 1968 is true, valid and binding?

RULE:

According to Muhammadan law, a legal hiba or gift must meet the following requirements:

An expression of the giver's desire to give.

An inferred or explicit acceptance by the recipient; and

A real or constructive takeover of possession of the gift's object by the recipient.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Testamentary succession in Muslim Law

Mussa Miya walad Mahammed Shaffi v. Kadar Bax, AIR 1928 PC 108

ISSUE:

Whether gift made by maternal grandfather to his grandchildren who are minor and are represented by their father valid?

RULE:

When a grandfather gives property to a daughter's sons, the sons' parents, and the grandsons who live with him while the donor retains possession of the property himself, the gift is not complete.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Testamentary succession in Muslim Law

Valia Peedikakkandi Katheessa Umma v. Pathakkalan Narayanath Kunhamu, AIR 1964 SC 275

ISSUE:

Whether a present given by a husband to his minor wife and received on her behalf by the woman is valid?

RULE:

According to Mohammedan law, if none of the minor's property guardians is available, a husband's gift of immovable property to his minor wife accepted on her behalf by her mother is still valid if the husband relinquishes ownership and possession of the property and there is a clear and manifest intention to do so.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Testamentary succession in Muslim Law

Hayatuddin v. Abdul Gani, AIR 1976 Bom. 23

ISSUE:

Whether gift of undivided property in absence of partition of the gifted property valid?

RULE:

An undivided portion (mushaa) in property that can be divided is an irregular but valid gift. Given that the gift is imperfect but not void, it can be made valid by later dividing it up and giving the recipient his portion.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Testamentary succession in Muslim Law

Abdul Hafiz Beg v. Sahebbi, AIR 1975 Bom. 165

ISSUE:

Whether the gift was made by the ailing person while under the apprehension of the death and further whether in such ailing he met his death?

When is the marz-ul-maut legislation applicable?

RULE:

The mere accident of death, which is a certainty in human existence, is not sufficient to invalidate the provisions. Basic jurisprudence and judicial pronouncements about this theory make it abundantly evident that the English phrase "death-illness" does not adequately convey the meaning of the word "marz-ul-maut." This notion seems to include a disease or ailment leading to death or resulting in the death of the affected individual. Because of this, the evidence of death. Its cause and the situation of the individual have their own distinct importance.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Testamentary succession in Muslim Law

Commissioner of Gift Tax v. Abdul Karim, AIR 1991 SC 1847

ISSUE:

What is the validity of a gift given "in contemplation of death" under Section 5(1)(xi) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958?

RULE:

According to section 5(1)(xi) of the Act, which states that the Gift-Tax Act shall not apply to a gift given by a person in anticipation of death.

The Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 191, Gift-transferable property made in anticipation of death. By gift given in anticipation of death, a man may dispose of any moveable property that he may dispose of by Will.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Hindu Succession Act 1956

Prakash and Ors. v. Phulavati and Ors., MANU/SC/1241/2015

ISSUE:

Whether the amendment is applicable even if the Respondent’s father had died after the act came into existence?

Whether the Amendment Act can be applied to the partition effectuated without the decree of court?

Whether the Amendment Act can be applied retrospectively?

RULE:

The rights of coparceners under the Amendment Act, 2005 apply to the living daughters of living coparceners as on 9th September 2005, irrespective of the birth date of daughters.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Hindu Succession Act 1956

Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma and Ors , (2020) 9 SCC 1, Civil Appeal No. 32601 of 2018

ISSUE:

Whether the amended Section 6 of The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 requires the coparcener to be alive as on 09.09.2020, for the daughter to claim rights in the coparcenary property?

Whether the amended Section 6 of the Act of 2005 is prospective, retrospective or retroactive?

RULE:

The right conferred on a daughter, in the coparcenary property is by birth and hence, it is not necessary that the father be alive as on 09.09.2005 and the amendment by way substitution of Section 6 of Act of 2005 is retroactive in nature.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here