Top News Headlines 30th Apr 2022: Cross Objections To Adverse Findings Not Necessary When Decree Is Completely In Favour, Can Be Challenged In Appeal By Adverse Party

Cross Objections To Adverse Findings Not Necessary When Decree Is Completely In Favour, Can Be Challenged In Appeal By Adverse Party: Madras HC

• In Suresh Kumar Kankariya vs K. Jigibai @ Pushpammal the Hon’ble Madras HC has observed that when the Court makes adverse findings against a party, it need not file a cross-appeal or a cross-objection to the same when the decree is entirely in favour of such party, these findings can be challenged when an appeal is filed by the judgement-debtor and the Court is entitled to decide the same. 
• The case of the petitioner was that he had entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent/defendant on 14-12-1998. According to the sale agreement the total sale consideration was Rs.3,00,000 and the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000 as an advance. The agreement also provided that the balance sale consideration will be paid within 12 months and on receipt of the same, agreed to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 
• On 15-09-2001, a sum of Rs.85,000 was paid to the defendant and the defendant also agreed to accept the remaining amount of Rs.15,000. It was contended by the appellant that due to this acceptance of consideration the time had been extended. It was also claimed that the defendant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, and the defendant was trying to evade the execution of the sale deed and when a legal notice was sent to the defendant, he denied the execution of any sale deed.
• When the defendants had tried to sell the suit property, the plaintiff filed a suit for temporary injunction and during its pendency, also filed a suit for specific performance. 
• The defendants had, on the other hand, contended that the signed blank stamp papers had been given as surety by the defendant when her brother in law had purchased a lorry from the plaintiff’s father under hire purchase agreement. Now these documents were being misused by the plaintiff even after the repayment of the money. They also denied the execution of any receipt as had been claimed by the plaintiff. 
• The Trial Court had decreed both the suits through a Judgement and Decree dated 9-8-2007. The same was also confirmed in appeal through a judgement and decree dated 30-4-2008. Aggrieved by the same the defendant had filed two second appeals in the HC, after which the matter was remanded to the Lower Appellate Court with the relevant directions. After complying with the same and after the re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and considering the findings of the Trial Court, both the appeals were allowed on 1-2-2012.
• Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff had filed the instant second appeal. 
• In addition to the substantial questions of law that were framed by the HC, an additional question of law was also framed by the Court- Where a favourable finding has been given by the Courts below even though the relief was denied, whether such findings can be interfered with in Second Appeal even when the cross objection has not been filed by the successful party and what would be the scope of invoking Order XLI rule 33 of CPC, while deciding the second appeal, where the jurisdiction is circumscribed by the provisions of section 100 of the Code. 
• Relying upon a plethora of judgements like Shri Saurav Jain and Anr vs ABP Design and Anr (2022) CTC and State of Andhra Pradesh vs B. Ranga Reddy (2020) the Hon’ble HC observed that the necessity to file a cross-objection or a cross-appeal would arise only when the impugned decree is partly in favour and partly against the respondent. When the decree is entirely in favour of the respondent, though there is a finding against the respondent, he does not need to file a cross-appeal or a cross-objection and the adverse findings can be challenged in the appeal filed by the adverse party and the Court is entitled to decide the same. 
• Applying the aforementioned ratio to the case at hand, the Court observed the decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court, was entirely in favour of the respondent and hence he is entitled to question the adverse findings on the issue of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC (whether the suit for specific performance is maintainable without seeking a leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC when the first suit was filed only seeking the relief of bare injunction?)
• For deciding the issue as to whether the subsequent suit filed to obtain a decree for specific performance is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, the Court relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in State Bank of India vs Gracure Pharmaceutical Ltd (2013) and Coffee Board vs Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd (2014) and observed that the plaintiff cannot split up the claim so as to omit one part of it and sue for the other, if the cause of action is available for all the claims. If the cause of action pleaded in both the suits is identical and the relief claimed in the subsequent suit could have been pleaded in the earlier suit, then the subsequent suit would be barred. Thus, the Court observed that the suit for specific performance was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. 
• Relying upon the case of K. Murali vs M. Mohammad Shaffir (2019) the Court also observed that the limitation begins to run from the date the parties have stipulated for the performance of the contract. The Court observed that the receipt produced by the appellants was a fabricated document, and was made only to get an extension on the limitation. Thus, the findings of the lower Court were not interfered with. 
• Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the second appeals were rejected. 

U/S 3 SC/ ST Act Insult Based On Caste Over Telephonic Conversation Doesn't Amount To An Offence As It's Not In Public: Andhra Pradesh HC

• In G.P. Hemakoti Reddy, Ananthapur Dist. Vs. P.P., Hyderabad (2022), Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that an allegation must be made that the words were said with the expressed intent to publicly shame the complainant about belonging to a particular community for an offense to be registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act). 
• In this case, the defacto complainant filed an FIR under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST Act which was requested to be quashed by the Petitioner (accused) through a criminal petition. The FIR alleged that the Petitioner (accused), a landlord by the side of the temple, had spoken to him, his family, and his community in an unparliamentary manner over the telephone after the defacto complainant contacted him for gaining possession of a specific area of land because the temple's current location was inadequate. Furthermore, the Petitioner argued that the claimed comments spoken over the telephone did not fall within the purview of the SC & ST Act as it was over the telephone and that continuing the criminal case would be an abuse of the judicial process.
• Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act provides that anyone who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe knowingly insults or intimidates intending to humiliate them in any public place shall be penalized.
• In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Supreme Court held that "any area within public view" was a vital component of the insult or intimidation under the SC & ST Act. 
• The Hon'ble Court concluded that the essential requirement that the words be spoken "at any place within public view" must be overlooked as charges of abusing the informant in the current FIR occurred within the four walls of the premises and that there were no allegations that the de facto complaint was overheard by the public. Furthermore, any disagreement over ownership of the property would not constitute a violation of the Act unless the victim was intimidated or harassed solely because she was a member of the SC or ST because the case about custody of property was pending in civil court.
• Therefore, the Hon'ble Court quashed the proceedings while allowing the criminal petition by stating that mere conversation on the telephone in the absence of any averments does not amount to any offence under the SC and ST Act.

Marriage, Not Engagement,  An Offence U/S 11, Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act, 2006: Rajasthan HC

• In the case titled Anop Singh v State of Rajasthan, the Hon’ble Rajasthan HC has observed that organising a marriage is a sine qua non to constitute an offence u/s 11, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Mere engagement child does not amount to an offence u/s 11 of the pertinent act.
• The petitioner had filed a misc. petition u/s 482, CrPC which challenged the proceedings of the case pending before Judicial Magistrate, Osian, Jodhpur. It was alleged that the petitioner had committed an offence u/s 11 and 15 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. He contended and even the charge sheet read that the petitioner had simply organised the engagement ceremony of his son. No marriage had taken place.
• The Counsel for the petitioner claimed that since marriage hasn’t been solemnised, neither the FIR could be registered against him, nor the court of law could take cognizance and frame charges against him.
• The learned Counsel also mentioned the plight of the petitioner by saying that he had been behind bars for more than 48 hours before he could be enlarged on bail, and as a result of which he was placed under suspension and was forced to face a departmental enquiry.
• The Hon'ble High Court observed that reading section 11 of the Act, it is clear that solemnising of the marriage is a sine qua non to constitute an offence under the given act. The engagement of a child, in any Case, does not amount to an offence. The court mentioned that it was unfortunate that the petitioner had to remain behind the bars for a few days and subsequently had to face the departmental enquiry.
• Thus the misc. petition was allowed and the FIR was quashed.