Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 92 (S92) - Leave and Judicial Rulings The references to S92 involve legal interpretations and rulings concerning leave entitlements, particularly in employment and administrative contexts. For example, one source notes that Section 12 preserves the right of employees to avail better leave terms than what are provided in the Act ["RAJAN THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]. Another highlights that arrangements for annual leave could lawfully be made wherein FIFO workers use their annual leave in their paid off-duty periods ["Surveillance Australia Pty Ltd T/A Leidos Airborne Solutions vs Australian Federation of Air Pilots"], indicating that leave policies can be flexible and subject to specific agreements or regulations. In judicial rulings, courts have examined the admissibility of confessional statements under S92, with one holding that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in ruling out the confessional statement of appellant Shyam Keot, under Section 164, Criminal P. C, as inadmissible ["SUKA MISRA VS STATE - Orissa"]. Additionally, the courts have addressed the interpretation of leave rules in disciplinary and contractual cases, emphasizing that if the leave asked for is granted, a leave pass showing the date from which the leave of absence commences shall be issued ["United Phosphorous Ltd. VS Presiding Member - Gujarat"]. The rulings also clarify that no Government ["servant"] shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding five years ["G Gurav vs M/o Finance - Central Administrative Tribunal"], and that an employee who has been on unauthorized leave for more than five years may face termination as per the rules ["THE SECRETARY MARTHOMA MEDICAL MISSION, MARTHOMA SABHA OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101 vs THE GENERAL SECRETARY PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PRIVATE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689650 - Kerala"].Analysis and Conclusion: Overall, the judicial and administrative references to S92 reflect its application in employment law, particularly regarding leave entitlement, the admissibility of evidence related to leave, and the limits on continuous leave. Courts uphold that leave rights can be better than statutory minimums, but also emphasize strict adherence to leave rules, especially concerning unauthorized or extended leave periods ["RAJAN THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["G Gurav vs M/o Finance - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Legal Principles on Leave - 1978 Rules and Cases Several sources refer to the 1978 legal rules governing leave, such as the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 which regulate professional conduct, including rules 4, 5, and 28 ["ALI REZA ZIBA HALAT MONFARED & SATU LAGI LWN. CHEW BEN BEN - High Court"]. Courts have examined whether actions, such as representing clients, violate these rules, indicating their importance in professional discipline. In employment contexts, the 1978 rules are cited in relation to employee leave rights, with courts affirming that the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that Section 12 preserves the right of employees to avail better leave terms than what are provided in the Act ["RAJAN THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]. Furthermore, decisions have clarified that arrangements for annual leave are lawful if they align with established agreements and rules ["Surveillance Australia Pty Ltd T/A Leidos Airborne Solutions vs Australian Federation of Air Pilots"].Analysis and Conclusion: The 1978 Rules underpin various legal decisions concerning professional conduct and employee leave, emphasizing adherence to established regulations and the importance of statutory and contractual rights. These rules serve as a foundation for disciplinary actions and leave entitlement interpretations in judicial rulings.
Leave Entitlements and Disciplinary Cases Several sources discuss leave in disciplinary and contractual circumstances. For example, in cases of unauthorized absence exceeding five years, the case is handled strictly under Rule 12(2) of the Leave Rules ["THE SECRETARY MARTHOMA MEDICAL MISSION, MARTHOMA SABHA OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101 vs THE GENERAL SECRETARY PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PRIVATE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689650 - Kerala"], leading to possible termination. Courts also recognize that if the leave is granted, a leave pass showing the date from which the leave commences shall be issued ["United Phosphorous Ltd. VS Presiding Member - Gujarat"], ensuring proper documentation. In disciplinary proceedings, the practice of paying leave pay when no leave is taken is not implied in the contract ["COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. Mrs. A. J. SUTHERLAND"], and a person who has not taken leave but is entitled to leave pay may be paid in lieu of leave ["COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. Mrs. A. J. SUTHERLAND"].Analysis and Conclusion: Leave entitlement enforcement depends on strict adherence to rules, proper documentation, and contractual terms. Unauthorized or prolonged absence often leads to disciplinary action, with courts stressing the importance of following procedural rules and contractual provisions.
References:- ["AASU ALIAS AASMOHAMMAD vs STATE HOME DEPARTMENTORS - Rajasthan"]- ["ALI REZA ZIBA HALAT MONFARED & SATU LAGI LWN. CHEW BEN BEN - High Court"]- ["RAJAN THOMAS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]- ["AASU ALIAS AASMOHAMMAD vs STATE HOME DEPARTMENTORS - Rajasthan"]- ["SUKA MISRA VS STATE - Orissa"]- ["KANAGASUNDERAM vs PODIHAMINE"]- ["I. N. SAKSENA VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Surveillance Australia Pty Ltd T/A Leidos Airborne Solutions vs Australian Federation of Air Pilots"]- ["THE SECRETARY MARTHOMA MEDICAL MISSION, MARTHOMA SABHA OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689101 vs THE GENERAL SECRETARY PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PRIVATE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION(CITU), PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689650 - Kerala"]- ["Municipal Corporation Of Greater Bombay VS B. R. S. T. Workers Union - Supreme Court"]- ["Sahendra Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Santan Prasad VS Coal India Limited, Through its Chairman cum Managing Director - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Shubh Lata Pandey VS Union of India - Patna"]- ["United Phosphorous Ltd. VS Presiding Member - Gujarat"]- ["COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. Mrs. A. J. SUTHERLAND"]
In the realm of Indian property law, questions like S92 leave 1978 ruling often arise when parties seek to challenge the validity of registered documents such as partition deeds, sale deeds, or gift deeds. This ruling, rooted in Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, addresses the evidentiary value of public documents and the stringent conditions under which they can be contested. Whether you're a property owner, buyer, or litigant, grasping this provision can prevent costly legal missteps.
This blog post breaks down the ruling, its implications, and related judicial principles. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Section 92 establishes that public documents required by law to be registered—such as those affecting immovable property—are primary evidence of their contents. The provision reads: Public documents required by law to be registered are primary evidence of their contents. This creates a strong presumption of genuineness and validity for duly registered deeds. Potluri Saraswathi VS Vallabhaneni Veerabhadra Rao - 2002 0 Supreme(AP) 379
Section 92 Leave 1978 refers to judicial discretion allowing courts to grant 'leave' or permission to challenge these documents under exceptional circumstances, often tied to 1978-era interpretations emphasizing procedural safeguards. Courts typically uphold the presumption unless challengers prove fraud, coercion, forgery, or illegality.
The 1978 ruling reinforces several key tenets, particularly in property disputes involving partition and sale deeds:
Registered documents enjoy a rebuttable presumption of authenticity. Courts favor their validity, shifting the burden to challengers to disprove them with concrete evidence. Simply labeling a deed as sham and nominal is insufficient without proof of vitiating factors. Potluri Saraswathi VS Vallabhaneni Veerabhadra Rao - 2002 0 Supreme(AP) 379
Implication: This protects bona fide transactions, making it harder for unsubstantiated claims to disrupt property rights.
Third parties lack standing to contest registered documents unless directly affected and evidence of fraud or illegality exists. In one case, the defendant, as a third party, argued a partition deed was sham but failed because:- They admitted the deed under Agricultural Land Ceiling Laws.- Mutation followed the partition, affirming its effect.
The court ruled: The defendant was a third party with no locus standi to challenge the validity of the documents unless they were vitiated by fraud or illegality. Potluri Saraswathi VS Vallabhaneni Veerabhadra Rao - 2002 0 Supreme(AP) 379
Courts exercise caution in granting leave to challenge, acting as a filter against frivolous claims. This procedural step ensures only genuine disputes proceed, promoting stability in property dealings.
The 1978 ruling aligns with broader jurisprudence on document validity and registration requirements:
In a 1978 Allahabad High Court decision, the court referenced rulings like Kedar v. District Judge, 1978 RD 307: 1978 ALJ 836, clarifying that instruments transferring immovable property rights must comply with registration laws under the Registration Act. Non-compliance invalidates them for certain purposes, such as under Section 164 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The court noted: The aforesaid judgment does not lay down any proposition that any instrument which purports to transfer of rights in Immovable property even if it does not comply with the requirement of registration Act, will be deemed to be valid for purpose of Section 164. UMESH CHAND VS BOARD OF REVENUE, ALLAHABAD - 2002 Supreme(All) 265
Another ruling emphasized civil court jurisdiction limits for bhumidhari land possession suits, barred under Section 331 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The court directed: Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try suits for possession of bhumidhari land under Section 331. This underscores revenue courts' primacy in land matters, tying into evidentiary presumptions for registered transfers. BRAHMA DATT VS HARIDWAR - 2001 Supreme(All) 652
Echoing registration's importance, a case on land reforms held that transfers over Rs. 100 require registered instruments, dismissing writs lacking such compliance. UMESH CHAND VS BOARD OF REVENUE, ALLAHABAD - 2002 Supreme(All) 265
These cases illustrate how Section 92's principles extend to land reform statutes, where unregistered or improperly challenged deeds falter.
Understanding S92 leave 1978 ruling has real-world impact:- Legal Certainty: Bolsters trust in registered deeds, easing sales and partitions.- Burden of Proof: Challengers must lead with fraud evidence; mere allegations fail.- Third-Party Limits: Protects innocent buyers from remote claims.- Procedural Filters: Leave requirements deter abuse, saving judicial time.
For instance, in disputes over survey numbers like S.F.No.s92, courts scrutinize sales of registered properties rigorously. Dhanasekaran vs The Inspector of Police
The Section 92 Leave 1978 ruling fortifies the evidentiary backbone of registered property documents, limiting challenges to those backed by solid proof. By upholding presumptions and locus standi, it fosters certainty in India's complex property landscape. While empowering genuine claims, it shields against vexatious litigation.
Always verify with current law and professionals, as interpretations evolve. For tailored advice, contact a legal expert.
References:- Potluri Saraswathi VS Vallabhaneni Veerabhadra Rao - 2002 0 Supreme(AP) 379 (Core case on partition deeds and Section 92 challenges)- UMESH CHAND VS BOARD OF REVENUE, ALLAHABAD - 2002 Supreme(All) 265 (1978 RD 307 on registration and land transfers)- BRAHMA DATT VS HARIDWAR - 2001 Supreme(All) 652 (Jurisdiction in bhumidhari land suits)- Dhanasekaran vs The Inspector of Police (Property sales references)
#Section92 #EvidenceActIndia #PropertyLaw
VS Shekhawat/-PA/p.1 8955cwprl13May29FnlDsps(S92
But that is not what s92 says. ... (ii) Dihujahkan juga tindakan Tetuan Kevin & Co mewakili Defendan dalam kes ini bertentangan dengan Peraturan 4, 5 dan 28, Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978. (iii) Bagi kemudahan rujukan, Peraturan-Peraturan tersebut adalah seperti berikut:- (i) Rule 4.
2019 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP NO.7495/2019 DATED 03.10.2023 EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF DAKSHINA MADHYA MEKHALA INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE PETITIONER RECEIVED VIDE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005, A COPY OF THE LETTER NO-D (5- S92
said selvaraj and the husband of the defacto complainant had sold their own properties comprised in S.F.No.s92
This included directions giving the 3 rd and 5 th Respondents’ leave to file further evidence relevant to the penalties no later than 27 August 2020 and the Commission leave to file evidence in reply by 11 September 2020 ... (1)(a) ) and the 5 th Respondent was involved in the contravention of the First Conduct Rule ( s92(1)(b) ). ... judgments which the 3 rd and 5 ....
S92, I should not have been inclined to reduce the sentences beyond what has been indicated in the judgment of my learned brother. ... I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the learned Sessions Judge was in error in ruling out the confessional statement of appellant Shyam Keot, under Section 164, Criminal P. C, as inadmissible. ... ... ( 18 ) I desire also to add that I propose to express no opinion, in this case, as to the correctness of the observations in the ruling reported in Gurubaru Praja v. The King. L. R. (1949) 1 Cut....
4 112 English Reports S92. 8 3 Q. B. L. R. para. 1. (G. A., Uva v. Banda) a full bench decision is binding.
AIR 1957 SC 892 (Supra)which were regarded in Moti Ram's case, AIR 1964 SC 600, as concluding the matter of compulsory retirement, so far as it was coverd by those decisions, thus leave
[10] The decision concluded that arrangements for annual leave could lawfully be made wherein FIFO workers use their annual leave in their paid off-duty periods immediately after the on-duty periods in which the annual leave accrued. ... With respect to the counterfactual, if a stay is granted and the appeal is unsuccessful, the appellant will restore any annual leave taken during the off swing period to the pilots’ annual leave balances. ... By reason of the above, the Commissioner erred in finding t....
.......... 6. The unreported ruling in In Re: Ramesh Chandra Tewari, 1978 TAC 439 (All.), Civil Misc. Writ No. 7317 of 1975 interprets Section 38 of the Act and the non-issuance of the fitness certificate because the model was not recent enough. May be, the vehicle, regardless of the year of its make, may be fit and the refusal to certify fitness merely because it is old may not always be right. We have no hesitation to hold, from the point of view of the human rights of road users, that the condition regarding the model of the permitted bus is within jurisdiction, and not ....
To my mind the ruling relevant on the point would be the ruling in kedar v. District Judge, 1978 RD 307 : 1978 ALJ 836. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this point is devoid of merits. " The aforesaid judgment does not lay down any proposition that any instrument which purports to transfer of rights in Immovable property even if it does not comply with the requirement of registration Act, will be deemed to be valid for purpose of Section 164, rather The aforesaid ruling dealt with usufructuary mortgage of bhumidhari land.
In that case this Court had allowed the appeal and ordered for return of the plaint for presentation to Revenue Court after making necessary amendments. Bhaiya Lal, that the suit for possession of bhumidhari land is of description falling under Section 209 Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, is barred under Section 331 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and hence Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The aforesaid ruling and law propounded by Honble Supreme Court has been followed by this Court in the ruling reported in 1978 ALJ 1273, Kishori Lalv.
It is apparent that the learned Judge was persuaded to dismiss the writ petition only on the ground that the dispute had attained finality. No.55 of 1963 even though was wrong, the petitioners cannot go behind it. Against the judgment of this Court, a Special Leave Petition, S.L.P. No.4688 of 1978, was preferred before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed.” It is clear from the above that the learned Judge was not made aware of the decision in A.S.No.884 of 1979 reported in Manjammal v. Arulmigu Nachadaithavirtharulia Swami Thirukoil, 100 L.W. 32, wherein the finding....
Manager, Ahmedabad Co-op. Deptt. Stores Ltd. , (1978) 19 Guj. LR 108 at p. 140 observed that the amended article 226 would enable the High Court to interfere with an Award or the industrial adjudicator if that is based on a complete misconception of law or it is based on no evidence or evidence or that no reasonable man would come to the conclusion to which the Arbitrator has arrived. We overrule the objection of invalidity of the High Court's order for want of power. " LR 108 cited before us we are satisfied that the writ power in larger given illegality and injustice, even if its use is se....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
