TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decisions on Admissibility of Affidavits and Land Compensation Rights</h1> <h3>Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors Versus Hari Dusadh & Ors</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decisions in two sets of appeals. Firstly, affidavits not sworn before the appropriate magistrates were deemed ... - Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of affidavits sworn before magistrates not in seisin of the case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Interpretation and application of Section 8 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of Affidavits:The core issue in these appeals was whether affidavits sworn or affirmed before magistrates who were not in seisin of the case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be read in evidence under that section. The High Court had ruled these affidavits inadmissible, prompting the appeals.- Legal Provisions Involved:- Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows parties to adduce evidence through affidavits.- The Oaths Act, 1873, governs the swearing or affirmation of affidavits, while the Oaths Act, 1969, was deemed inapplicable.- Key Legal Interpretation:- Affidavits under Section 145 are considered evidence for proceedings before the concerned magistrate, notwithstanding the Evidence Act.- The Code does not specify courts or persons before whom such affidavits must be sworn, necessitating reliance on general provisions.- Application of the Oaths Act:- Section 4 of the Oaths Act authorizes courts and persons to administer oaths if acting 'in discharge of the duties or in exercise of the powers imposed or conferred upon them respectively by law.'- Only magistrates dealing with the Section 145 proceedings could administer such oaths, not those unconnected with the case.- Conclusion:- As the affidavits in question were not sworn before the magistrates handling the disputes, they were deemed improper and inadmissible as evidence under Section 145.- The appeals were dismissed based on precedents and legal reasoning supporting the High Court's decision.2. Interpretation and Application of Section 8 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960:The second set of appeals involved the interpretation of Section 8 concerning whether further restrictions could be imposed on land after acquiring title from the government.- Background Facts:- An agreement in 1939 and modified in 1941 allowed Joseph and his father to reclaim land, with conditions on alienation until full payment.- Joseph fulfilled the terms, and in 1957, executed a deed of settlement for the land.- The Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 led to proceedings for land surrender, questioning whether the land should be treated as a single unit or separate units for compensation.- Key Legal Interpretation:- Section 8 validates all provisions, restrictions, conditions, and limitations in any Patta or document evidencing government land assignment.- The restraint on alienation in the 1941 agreement applied only until full payment was made, which was completed before 1957.- High Court's Findings:- The settlement deed of 1957 was recognized by the government, with mutations and pattas issued to Joseph's children.- The Kerala High Court found no conditions in the Patta to which Section 8 could apply post-payment.- Conclusion:- The High Court correctly interpreted that Joseph's children acquired rights under the settlement deed, entitling them to compensation for separate units.- The appeals were dismissed, affirming that no further restrictions could be imposed once the conditions of the original agreement were fulfilled.Overall Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decisions in both sets of appeals. The affidavits not sworn before the appropriate magistrates were inadmissible under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, the terms of the 1941 agreement did not impose further restrictions once the land value was fully paid, allowing Joseph's children to be treated as separate unit holders for compensation purposes under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's interpretations and applications of the relevant legal provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
