Top News Headlines 20th Apr 2022: Gift Of Ancestral Property Of HUF Can Only Be For ‘Pious Purposes’, Cannot Be ‘Out Of Love And Affection’

Gift Of Ancestral Property Of HUF Can Only Be For ‘Pious Purposes’, Cannot Be ‘Out Of Love And Affection’: SC

• In the case of KC Laxmana vs KC Chandrappa Gowda the Apex Court has held that a Hindu Father or any other member of Hindu Undivided Family has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a pious purpose and the same cannot be done out of love and affection as the same does not come within the scope of the term pious purpose. 
• In the instant case, one KC Chandrappa Gowda filed a suit against his father Chinne Gowda and one KC Laxmana for the partition and separate possession of the suit scheduled property and for a declaration that the gift made by his father Chinne Gowda in favour of KC Laxamana as null and void. 
• The property in dispute belonged to the joint family which consisted of himself, his father Chinne Gowda and one KC Subraya Gowda. He contended that Chinne Gowda had no right to transfer the property to KC Laxmana as he was neither a coparcener nor a member of his family. 
• In the written statement, the defendant Chinne Gowda contended that KC Laxmana was brought up by him and out of love and affection he settled the suit property in his favour. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but the first Appellate Court decreed the suit. The Karnataka HC dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and upheld the decision of the Appellate Court. 
• Referring to the Limitation Act, the Apex Court observed that Article 58 would have no impact in the present case. Article 58 provides for the period of limitation of 3 years to file a suit to obtain any declaration. The Court observed that the present case would be governed by Article 109 which specifically applies to cases in which alienation done by the father can be challenged by the son and property is ancestral and the parties are governed by the Mitakshara Law. The general rule is that when a statute contains both general as well as a specific provision, the latter prevails. 
• According to Article 109, the limitation period which would govern this particular case is 12 years from the date the alienee takes possession of the scheduled property. Taking note of the relevant dates, the Court observed that the suit was not barred by limitation. 
• The Court further observed that a Karta of a HUF can alienate joint family property in three situations, legal necessity, for the benefit of the estate and with the consent of all the coparceners of the property. Referring to the case of Thimmaiah and ors. vs Ningamma and anr. the Court observed that where an alienation is not made with the consent of all the coparceners, the same is voidable at the option of the coparcener whose consent was not obtained. Thus, in the present case, the alienation of the property in favour of the second defendant (Laxmana) was voidable at the instance of the plaintiff whose consent had not been taken. 
• The Court also went on to observe that a Hindu father or any karta of a HUF can alienate the property via gift for any pious purpose, which means a gift can be made for a religious or a charitable purpose. A deed of gift made out of natural love and affection does not fall into this category of pious purpose. The Court referred to the case of Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh and ors. vs. Mallappa Chanbasappa and anr. AIR 1964 SC. 
• Thus, in light of the aforementioned observations, the appeal was dismissed. 

Madhya Pradesh HC Grants Bail To Man Arrested On The Confession Of The Co-accused

• In the case of B.P. @ Amrat Singh Gurjar vs State of MP the Madhya Pradesh HC has granted bail to a man arrested on the basis of the confessional statement of a co-accused. The Court observed that lately, it has become a norm for the police to file a charge-sheet against a person only on the basis of the confessional statements of an accused.
• The Court was of the opinion that the police do not try to collect any substantive evidence against the accused persons. It appears that either the Investigating Officers are deliberately leaving lacunae in the evidence or that they are not familiar with the law of Evidence. 
• The Counsel for the prosecution had contended that the applicant/accused had been arrested for an offence punishable under section 34(2) of the MP Excise Act. After receiving a tip from an informant, the police had laid a trap and the car along with the liquor was intercepted. One person succeeded in escaping but the co-accused along with the liquor was arrested. He disclosed the name and the identity of the runaway accused, who is the applicant in the present case. 
• The Counsel for the applicant submitted that other than the confessional statement of the co-accused, there was no other admissible evidence against him so as to implicate him in the offence. It was further argued that the Test Identification Parade had not been carried out and the chargesheet had been filed, and also that the applicant had no previous criminal history.
• Thus, the Court observed that in light of the fact that there was no substantive and admissible evidence against the applicant, and that he had been arrested solely on the basis of the confessional statement made by the co-accused, which was inadmissible under section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the application was allowed. 
• Referring to the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Aparna Bhatt and ors vs State of MP (2021), the Court ordered that the intimation of the grant of bail be sent to the complainant.  

Madhya Pradesh HC Relied On Two Finger Test To Cancel Bail; Mere Delay In Lodging FIR Not Fatal To Prosecution Case

• In Father Of Prosecutrix-X v State Of Madhya Pradesh (2021), Justice R.K. Dubey, while dealing with the implementation for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) CrPC filed by the Prosecutrix's father, noted that the Prosecutrix's medical examination report stated that no conclusive opinion could be given regarding rape. However, it was discovered that she had been sexually assaulted as her hymen was ruptured, and two fingers could easily penetrate the vagina, as per the reports.
• In this case, it was claimed that the Prosecutrix, a minor at the time of execution of the crime, admitted to her brother after he found her attempting suicide that she had been repeatedly raped by the respondent for six years. She had not previously mentioned this incident to anybody due to her fear of the respondent. Furthermore, the Prosecutrix's mental and physical well-being had been adversely affected since the event, and she had to endure several therapy sessions with a psychiatrist to cope with her fear, anxiety, and lack of confidence.
• The Appellant stated that the lower court made a substantial error in granting bail to the defendant because it failed to consider the Prosecutrix's trauma and the seriousness of the crime perpetrated against her. Thus, the contested bail order was inclined to be overturned. However, the respondents asserted that if, as stated by the Appellant, the Prosecutrix had been repeatedly raped by the respondent for six years, this fact must have come to the Prosecutrix's mother's attention, which it did not. Furthermore, the Prosecution provided no plausible explanation for the delay in filing the FIR. Moreover, it was claimed that bail was approved only after a thorough review by the lower court and that an order for bail cancellation must be supported by compelling and overwhelming evidence.
• Section 439 (2) of the Code authorizes the High Courts and Courts of Sessions to order the arrest or detention of a person freed on bail. However, an order for bail cancellation must be supported by compelling and overwhelming evidence.
• In a very similar case, State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny [(2017)2 SCC 51], the critical argument offered by the defence before the trial court was that it was a case of undue delay, with reporting to the Police three years after the occurrence. However, the Trial Court rejected this contention, and the respondent's appeal was accepted.
• In State of Bihar vs. Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav [(2017) 2 SCC 178], it was ruled that an order allowing bail that ignored relevant facts on record and did not provide reasons was erroneous and contrary to the norms of law. Such an order would be sufficient justification to file an application for bail cancellation. Furthermore, the court ruled that the cause for cancellation is distinct from the grounds that the accused misbehaved or that new circumstances warrant cancellation.
• In another relevant case, Aslam Babalal Desai vs. the State of Maharashtra [1992 (4) SCC 272], the Supreme Court concluded that unless there are compelling reasons to terminate the bail, the bail granted cannot be revoked simply by producing the charge sheet.
• After hearing both parties and reviewing the aforementioned cases, the Hon'ble HC held that bail should not be cancelled mechanically after being granted without contemplating the facts and circumstances of the case to allow the accused to preserve his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. However, courts have the authority and discretion to quash bail even when no supervening circumstances exist to carry out justice.
• Furthermore, it was concluded that the Prosecution justified the delay in filing the FIR and that in cases like this, where a minor girl was subjected to sexual abuse by two people, one of whom is a relative, mere delay in filing the FIR cannot demolish the prosecution case.
• Therefore, while allowing the application, the Hon'ble court cancelled the bail granted to the accused.