Trace Your Case

Categories
Types of Property:

Shantabai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 532

ISSUE:

Is a tree an immovable property and what is the distinction between the tree and standing timber?

What is the distinction between a lease document and profit a prendre?

RULE:

Trees are immovable property.

In case of a lease, one who enjoys the property has no right' to take it away. In a property-a-Prendre, one has a license to enter on the land, not for the purpose of enjoying it but for removing something.

Deed for transferring the right in the case required registration.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Types of Property:

Suresh Chand v. Kundan (2001) 10 SCC 221

ISSUE:

Whether during the sale of a land, the saplings standing on the land are also transferred along with land?

What happens in the case of the absence of any expressed or implied intention in the agreement?

RULE:

Section 3 and section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Section 3(26) of the General clauses Act.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Types of Property:

Duncan Industries Ltd. v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2000) SCC 633

ISSUE:

Whether machinery that is embedded in the earth is movable property or immovable property?

RULE:

The categorization depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case however, primarily, the court takes into consideration the intention of the parties when it decides to embed the machinery whether such embedment was intended to be temporary or permanent.

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

Itwari v. Asghari and Ors, AIR 1960 All 684

ISSUE:

Whether the consummation of a second marriage by the husband be used as a ground of cruelty towards the first wife and refuse to live with the husband?

RULE:

Restitution of conjugal rights: Where either the husband or wife has, without lawful ground withdrawn from the society of the other, or neglected to perform the obligations imposed by law or by the contract of marriage, the court may decree restitution of conjugal rights, may put either party on terms securing to the other the enjoyment of his or her rights.

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

Abdurahiman v. Khairunnessa, Kerala High Court, March 1, 2010

ISSUE:

How is the expression “does not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran” in Section 2 (viii)(f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 to be understood in law?

Whether the Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution must definitely include the right to a healthy and harmonious matrimonial life.

RULE:

Grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage: A woman married under Muslim law shall be entitled to obtain a decree for the dissolution of her marriage on any one or more of the following grounds, namely:

That the husband has neglected or has failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years

That the husband has failed to perform, without reasonable cause, his marital obligations for a period of three years.

That the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say, that the husband treats her with cruelty, that is to say,—“ Habitually assaults her or makes her life miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct does not amount to physical ill-treatment.

If he has more wives than one, does not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran;

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

Yousuf Rawther v. Sowramma, AIR 1971 Ker 261

ISSUE:

Does a female who wrongfully leaves the matrimonial home have the right to claim dissolution through court for mere failure of the husband to maintain the erring wife for 2 years?

RULE:

Section 2(ii) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act states that a woman is entitled to obtain a decree for dissolution of her marriage if her husband has neglected or has failed to provide for her maintenance for a period of two years.

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

Shamim Ara v. State Of U.P., KLT 2002(3) (SC) 537 

ISSUE:

Whether the wife can be said to have been divorced and the said divorce communicated to her so as to become effective from 5th December 1990, the date of filing of the written statement by the husband in the proceedings?

RULE:

Principles of Mohammedan Law on divorce state that, divorce can be both (a) Oral or (b) written. Intention to dissolve marriage must be clear and if such intention is ambiguous in circumstance, the intention must be proven.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Personal Law

Kailash Vati v  Ayodhia Prakash (1977) 79 PLR 216 

ISSUE:

Can a wife decide to reside separately from the husband in the absence of any consensual arrangement or without any misconduct on the part of the husband?

Does the husband give up his right to have a common marital home by marrying a woman already employed in the private or public sector?

RULE:

Where a wife, against the wishes of her husband, accepts employment away from the matrimonial home and unilaterally withdraws therefrom, she would be violating the mutual obligation of the husband and wife together.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Personal Law

Swaraj Garg v. Garg AIR 1978 Delhi 296

ISSUE:

In the absence of an agreement between the parties, and when the husband and the wife are both gainfully employed at two different places from before their marriage, where will be the matrimonial home after the marriage?

Did the wife have a reasonable excuse to withdraw from the society of the husband?

RULE:

Paragraph 442 of Mulla’s Hindu Law, confers upon the wife the duty to reside with her husband and under his authority, and states that the husband is obliged to maintain her. The court stated that, a custom can only become enforceable when it is predominant in society, applicable to the concerned m parties, and coherent with the evolving times. It’s true the male is usually expected to be the wage earner in family but with changing times, more and more number or women taking up jobs and being independent, it was unreasonable and against public welfare to expect a working woman to leave her job at her husband’s demand in order to reside with him when he himself is financially unstable.

Article 14 gives the right to equality to all and to give the husband an exclusive right to decide upon the matrimonial home would be discriminatory against women and also against the spirit of Article 14. Thus, this custom of the wife giving up all her rights and submitting to the demands of the husband was no more applicable to the parties in this particular case taking into account the developments in society.

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