Legally Sane

An interfaith couple (Hindu-Muslim) approached the MP High Court at Jabalpur seeking protection from their family members as they wanted to get married under the Special Marriage Act of 1954, however, the families objected to the said marriage.  The couple relied upon the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475 , wherein, it was directed that administration/police authorities shall ensure that no inter-caste or inter-faith couple, who have attained majority, is harassed by anyone or subjected to threats or acts of violence, and if such threats extended or harassment caused or act of violence committed, he/she should be strictly prosecuted according to law.      The issues before the HC Whether the marriage of a Muslim boy with a Hindu girl be a valid marriage or not? To answer the issue, the HC strongly relied upon a judgment delivered by a division bench of the SC in Mohammed Salim (D) Through ...

  On 03.05.2024, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2991 of 2024 titled Chander Bhan (D) Through LR Sher Singh Vs. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors. has decided on a substantial question of law relating to the doctrine of lis pendens and rights of subsequent purchaser, wherein, the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 entered into an agreement to sell a piece of land for a total consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs, where Rs. 2.50 lakhs was paid at the time of agreement and the remaining amount was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed, which was to be executed on or before 10.11.2004. A temporary injunction was granted to the Appellant against Respondent No. 3 on the suit property in a suit for a permanent injunction on the ground that the R3 was likely to alienate the suit property. On the very same day, R3 executed a “release deed” in favour of his son (R4). Subsequently, R4 executed a sale deed in favour of R1 & R2 for the suit pro...

On 26.09.2023, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 8428 of 2018  titled Rahimal Bathu & Ors. Vs. Ashiyal Beevi   has decided on a very interesting and substantial question of law relating to the maintainability of a revision petition against an order rejecting a review petition , wherein, a  lady named Fatima Beevi was gifted a property by his father and she further gifted it, through a gift deed, to her son in 1982. Subsequently, the same property was sold, through a sale deed, to her grandson in 1990 by herself. After the death of Fatima Beevi and her son, a dispute arose between the wife of her son and her grandson, therefore, her grandson approached the Court praying for: 1. Declaration of exclusive ownership 2. Additionally, possession of the property  3. Alternatively, the partition of the property  The trial Court held that the gift deed executed in the favour of the son of Fatima Beevi is invalid and the sale deed executed in...

On 12.09.2022, DJ, Varanasi, Dr. Ajay Krishna Vishvesha in Original Suit No. 18 of 2022 titled Smt. Rakhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors . delivered an order disposing of the application filed under O7R11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’), wherein, the application under O7R11 of the CPC was filed by Defendant No. 4 on the following grounds- The Suit of the Plaintiffs is barred by Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1991’). The Suit of the Plaintiffs is barred by Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1995’). The Suit of the Plaintiffs is barred by the Uttar Pradesh Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1983’). Scope of Court’s Power Under O7R11, CPC  It is a settled principle of law that while deciding an application under O7R11 of the CPC, only the averments of the Plaint must be seen and the defe...

There is no prima facie irregularity in the judgment pronounced by the DJ, Mathura if the 1968 agreement is genuine and does not violate the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or any other relevant provisions of law, time being in force, and most importantly, after the said agreement, one Consent Decree (Compromise Decree) was also passed in 1974 which makes the agreement valid and binding unless otherwise decided by the Court of Justice. Further, the effect of this judgment does not render the Act of 1991 a nugatory rather it substantiates the validity of the said Act. In pursuance of learning this aspect, we need to understand the basics of the Act of 1991. It prohibits two things- Firstly, the conversion of any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a DIFFERENT SECTION of the SAME RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION (it means the temple of one deity cannot be converted into the temple of another deity of same religious denomina...