Top News Headlines 6th May 2022: Suit For Injunction In Respect Of Immovable Properties Not Abated On Death Of The Parties

Suit For Injunction In Respect Of Immovable Properties Not Abated On Death Of The Parties: Karnataka HC 

• In Chennaiah and ors vs. Bylappa and ors the Karnataka HC has held that in a suit relating to the grant of injunction in respect of an immovable property, the right to sue is not limited to the plaintiff, instead it survives to his legal representative and thus, it does not abate on the death of the parties. 
• The present second appeal arose out of a suit for injunction which had been instituted by the appellants against Bylappa. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had refused to grant the injunction and thus, the plaintiffs had presented the second appeal. 
• Both the first plaintiff and the original defendant had passed away and their legal representatives were brought on record. The argument that was advanced was that since the suit was one of injunction, on the death of the first plaintiff, it could not continue, and on the death of the defendant, the suit would abate. 
• The Court observed that the right to enjoy possession of an immovable property is not a right which can be enjoyed by just one person, and it is not a right which cannot survive beyond the life of that person. The right to enjoy a property is a transferable right and is not limited to just one person. On the death of a person, the right to enjoy possession  of that property survives onto his legal representatives. 
• The Court added that if it was to be held that in a suit for injunction, whenever the plaintiff or defendant would die, the suit would abate, it would lead to the creation of a never ending cycle of litigation, which would result in an absurd situation where the parties would be litigating in the Courts forever.
• It was also observed that injunction under the Specific Relief Act is a preventive relief which is granted at the discretion of the Court. A decree of perpetual injunction perpetually enjoins a defendant from the assertion of his right or from the commission of an act which is contrary to the plaintiff’s rights. There is nothing indicated in the Specific Relief Act which would indicate that injunction is a right which is personal to the plaintiff only, like a suit for defamation would be. This was observed by the Court while referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Puran Singh and ors vs State of Punjab and ors (1996) SCC.
• The Hon’ble HC also referred to section 306 of the Indian Evidence Act where it is held that in a suit for injunction in relation to an immovable property, the legal representatives of the deceased would enjoy the relief that the original party would be entitled to by virtue of inheritance or succession in their favour, and thus, the suit would not abate and would continue by bringing the legal representatives on record. 
• Thus, the appeal was allowed and the decisions of both the lower Courts were set aside. 

Lalitpur Rape Case: SHO Accused Of Raping Gang-Rape Victim Sent To 14-Day Judicial Custody

• The Station House Officer (SHO), Tilakdhari Saroj, who was arrested on the charge of raping a gang-rape victim minor girl, was sent to a 14-day judicial custody on Thursday.
• The Prayagraj Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Prem Prakash said that the SHO was arrested from near the Allahabad HC. He said that on a tip off from his Kanpur counterpart, a police team was dispatched who searched for Saroj on the basis of his mobile phone location. The official also informed that Saroj was changing his phone at the time of the arrest. 
• Police sources suggest that the minor girl, who is 13 years old, was lured by 4 men to Bhopal, where she was gang-raped for 3 days, and then was left near the Pali police station, where she was again raped by the said SHO. All the six accused in the case have been sent to jail after Court’s orders.
• The incident came to light when the victim narrated her ordeal to an NGO, which approached the Superintendent of Police. 
• It has been reported that initially the SHO Saroj had handed the victim over to her aunt, but later she was called back to the police station on the pretext of recording her statement, and was then allegedly raped by the Saroj. 
• An FIR was lodged in the matter under sections 363, 376, 376B, 120B of IPC and the POCSO Act, among others. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has already issued notices to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, asking them to submit a report within a time of 4 weeks. 

Detaining Authority Must Furnish Compelling Reasons For Preventive Detention Even If The Person Is In Police Or Judicial Custody: Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh HC

• In MUSHTAQ AHMAD AHANGAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K & ANR, the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh HC has observed that it is vital for the Detaining Authority to furnish compelling reasons for resorting to preventive detention even if a person is in police or judicial custody or involved in a criminal case.
• The present case arose from a petition filed by Mushtaq Ahmad Ahangar who challenged the legality of the detention orders issued by the District Magistrate. The petitioner contended that the Detaining Authority has passed impugned detention order without application of mind and the grounds mentioned for detention are vague and non-existent as the petitioner had already been admitted bail in one of the FIRs mentioned as the grounds of detention and hence sought to quash the detention orders.
• The respondent contended in the counter affidavit that the activities of the detenu ( the petitioner) are highly prejudicial to the security of the State. It was also alleged that detention orders and grounds for detention were handed over and read over to the detenu.
• The Hon’ble Court extracted from the course of argument that there has been non-application of mind on the part of Detaining Authority as it didn't mention the acquittal of detenu in the orders. It was also observed that the detenu was already in custody in connection with offense u/s 147,148,336,307,188,269 IPC and no compelling reasons have been mentioned for the detaining order and same has not been furnished to the detenue. 
• The Hon'ble HC upheld the precedent of Anant Sakharam Raut v State of Maharashtra and others, 1987 where the Apex Court observed that  non-mentioning of important facts on the grounds of detention exhibits non-application of mind on the part of Detaining Authority. 
• The judgment of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Surya Prakash Sharma v State of UP and ors, 1994  was also referred which said that the preventive detention orders can be passed even when a person is in police/judicial custody or involved in a criminal case but for doing so, compelling reasons are to be recorded. It was vital to safeguard the petitioner against the arbitrary use of the law of preventive detention given by the Detaining Authority.
• Hence, with reference to the above-mentioned case laws the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh HC, allowed the petition and quashed the detention orders.