1. On 20th January, 2009, a two Judges Bench in Jai Singh and Ors. v. Gurmej Singh
[Civil Appeal No. 321 of 2009] summarized principles relating to inter-se rights and
liabilities of co-sharers as follows:- (1) A co-owner has an interest in the whole property
and also in every parcel of it; (2) Possession of joint property by one co-owner is in
the eye of law, possession of all even if all but one are actually out of possession; (3)
A mere occupation of a larger portion or even of an entire joint property does not
necessarily amount to ouster as the possession of one is deemed to be on behalf of
all; (4) The above rule admits of an exception when there is ouster of a co-owner by
another. But in order to negative the presumption of joint possession on behalf of all,
on the ground of ouster, the possession of a co-owner must not only be exclusive but
also hostile to the knowledge of the other as, when a co-owner openly asserts his
own title and denies, that of the other; (5) Passage of time does not extinguish the
right of the co-owner who has been out of possession of the joint property except in
the event of ouster or abandonment; (6) Every co-owner has a right to use the joint
property in a husband like manner not inconsistent with similar rights of other coowners
and (7) Where a co-owner is in possession of separate parcels under an
arrangement consented by the other co-owners, it is not open to anybody to disturb
the arrangement without the consent of others except by filing a suit for partition.
The Bench held that “when a co-sharer is in exclusive possession of some portion of
the joint holding he is in possession thereof as a co-sharer and is entitled to continue
in its possession if it is not more than his share till the joint holding is partitioned.
Vendor cannot sell any property with better rights than himself. As a necessary corollary
when a co-sharer sells his share in the joint holding or any portion thereof and puts
the vendee into possession of the land in his possession what he transfers is his right
as a co-sharer in the said land and the right to remain in its exclusive possession till
the joint holding is partitioned amongst all co-sharers.”
2. On 21st January, 2009, a two Judges Bench in Ranveer Singh v. State of M.P. [Criminal
Appeal No.115 of 2009] observed that “the right of private defence is essentially a
defensive right circumscribed by the governing statute i.e. the IPC, available only
when the circumstances clearly justify it. It should not be allowed to be pleaded or
availed as a pretext for a vindictive, aggressive or retributive purpose of offence. It is
a right of defence, not of retribution, expected to repel unlawful aggression and not as
retaliatory measure. While providing for exercise of the right, care has been taken in
IPC not to provide a mechanism whereby an attack may be a pretence for killing.”
“A right to defend does not include a right to launch an offensive, particularly when
the need to defend no longer survived”, the Bench said.
For More
No comments:
Post a Comment