29 April 2025 Legal Updates

WHEN JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTY IS PARTITIONED, SHARES OF PARTIES BECOME THEIR SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTIES: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar & Ors. 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 22, 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan 

Key Facts:

The suit property (7 acres 20 guntas) was originally part of joint family property partitioned in 1986 among Jayaramappa and his brothers. Jayaramappa purchased the property from his brother Thippeswamy in 1989 and later sold it to Chandranna in 1993.  Plaintiffs (Jayaramappa’s children) sued for partition, claiming the property was ancestral and thus they had rights over it. 

Procedural History:

• Trial Court (2001): Decreed the suit in favor of plaintiffs, treating the property as ancestral. 
• First Appellate Court (2006): Reversed the trial court order, holding the property was Jayaramappa’s self-acquired property. 
• High Court (2021): Restored the trial court’s decision, ruling the property was ancestral. 

Issues Before the Supreme Court:

• Whether the High Court erred in re-appreciating facts under Section 100 CPC (Second Appeal jurisdiction) instead of limiting itself to substantial questions of law. 
• Whether the suit property was ancestral (joint family property) or self-acquired by Jayaramappa. 
• Whether the doctrine of blending (voluntarily merging self-acquired property into joint family pool) applied. 

Supreme Court’s Judgment:

1. Scope of Second Appeal (Section 100 CPC): 

• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-examining facts instead of addressing a substantial question of law. 
• Cited precedents to emphasize that High Courts cannot interfere with factual findings unless there is a legal error or no evidence. 

2. Ancestral vs. Self-Acquired Property: 

• After the 1986 partition, the property allotted to Jayaramappa’s brother (Thippeswamy) became his self-acquired property. 
• Jayaramappa purchased the suit property in 1989 using personal funds and a loan (not joint family income). Plaintiffs failed to prove the property was acquired using joint family nucleus. 

3. Doctrine of Blending: 

• Not applicable here. Blending requires clear intention to abandon separate rights, which was absent. Mere use of property by family members does not imply blending. 

4. Validity of Sale to Chandranna: 

• Since the property was Jayaramappa’s self-acquired, he had full rights to sell it. Plaintiffs’ suit for partition without challenging the sale deed was unsustainable. 

Decision:

• Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and restored the First Appellate Court’s decision. 
• Held: The suit property was Jayaramappa’s self-acquired property, and the sale to Chandranna was valid. 

Key Takeaways:

Property obtained post-partition is self-acquired unless proven otherwise. Burden lies on the party claiming it as joint family property. 

OFFENCE FOR FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION U/S12(1)(B) OF PASSPORTS ACT IS ATTRACTED EVEN IF OFFENDER IS A FOREIGNER: KERALA HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

Arjun Madou Dugi v. State of Kerala & Others 

(b) Court:

High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 

(c) Date of Decision:

24th March 2025 

(d) Bench:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.G. Arun 

Facts:

1. The petitioner, Arjun Madou Dugi, a British citizen of Indian origin, was accused of: 

• Forgery (Sections 465 & 471 IPC): Allegedly submitting a forged Aadhaar card to obtain a Portuguese passport and later a British passport. 
• Passport Act Violations (Sections 12(1)(b) & 12(1A)): Using multiple passports with discrepancies in personal details. 
• Foreigners Act Violations (Sections 14A(a) & (b)): Overstaying in India beyond visa validity (303 days). 

2. The petitioner was arrested at Cochin International Airport when missing pages were found in his British passport. He was granted bail but restricted to Kerala under court supervision. 

Key Legal Issues:

Can a foreign national be prosecuted under the Passports Act for a tampered foreign passport?

Legal Analysis

1. Applicability of the Passports Act to Foreign Citizens: 

• Petitioner argued the Act applies only to Indian citizens. 
• Court’s Ruling: Section 3 of the Passports Act includes foreign passports for departure from India. Missing pages rendered his passport invalid, attracting Section 12(1)(b). 

2. Forgery Charges (IPC Sections 465 & 471): 

• Petitioner claimed no *mens rea* (intent to deceive). 
• Court’s Ruling: Discrepancies in names, addresses, and dates across passports (Annexures R3(b)–R3(e)) indicated deliberate falsification. 

3. Overstaying Visa (Foreigners Act, Section 14A(b)): 

• Petitioner argued his initial entry was legal. 
• Court’s Ruling: Overstaying without valid registration documents (under Foreigners Order, 1948, and Registration Rules, 1992) is punishable regardless of lawful entry. 

4. Sympathetic Consideration: 

• Petitioner sought relief citing family/business hardships in the UK. 
• Court’s Ruling: Denied due to suspicious conduct and gravity of charges. 

Final Judgment:

The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding: 

• Prosecution under the Passports Act and IPC for forgery. 
• Foreigners Act charges for overstaying. 
• No interim relief granted; investigation to proceed. 

Key Takeaways:

• Passports Act, 1967: Applies to foreign nationals departing India if their passport is invalid (Section 3). 
• Foreigners Act, 1946: Regulates not just entry but also stay (Section 14A(b)). 
• IPC Forgery: Discrepancies in official documents can establish mens rea. 

LACK OF MOTIVE MAY SUPPORT INSANITY PLEA': SUPREME COURT REDUCES SENTENCE OF MOTHER WHO KILLED 2 DAUGHTERS UNDER 'INVISIBLE INFLUENCE

(a) Case Name:

• Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh 

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India 

(c) Date of Decision:

• April 28, 2025 

(d) Bench:

• Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh 

Facts:

On June 5, 2015, Chunni Bai assaulted her two minor daughters (aged 5 and 3) with an iron crowbar, causing their deaths.  Sonam Sahu (witness), the appellant’s sister-in-law, witnessed the act and informed others. 

Procedural History:

Trial Court & High Court: Convicted Chunni Bai under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sentenced her to life imprisonment. 

Supreme Court’s Analysis:

• Actus Reus (Guilty Act): - The prosecution proved homicide through eyewitness testimony, medical evidence (postmortem reports), and recovery of the weapon (iron crowbar with human blood). 
• Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): - The Court doubted whether Chunni Bai had the intention to kill (essential for murder under Section 302 IPC). 

Key Observations:

• There was no prior motive or strained relationships (loving mother, cordial family). 
• The appellant contended that she was under an "invisible power" during the act (covered under Section 84 IPC – unsound mind). 
• Witnesses stated she was remorseful post-incident, crying and admitting to the act without fleeing. 
• No medical evidence of mental illness, but rural context and lack of awareness about mental disorders were considered. 

Legal Principles Applied:

• Section 84 IPC: Requires incapacity to know the nature/legality of the act. The appellant failed to conclusively prove this but raised reasonable doubt. 
• Burden of Proof: Under Section 105, Indian Evidence Act, the accused must prove exceptions (e.g., insanity) on a preponderance of probability. 
• Difference Between Murder and Culpable Homicide: 
• Murder (Section 302 IPC): Requires intention/knowledge of likely death. 
• Culpable Homicide (Section 304 IPC): No intention but knowledge of possible harm. 
• The Court classified this as "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" (Part II of Section 304 IPC) due to lack of proven intention. 

Decision:

• Conviction converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. 
• Sentence: 9 years and 10 months (already served). Appellant ordered to be released. 

Key Takeaways:

• Distinction Between Murder and Culpable Homicide: Focus on intention vs. knowledge. 
• Section 84 IPC: Insanity defense requires incapacity to understand the act’s nature/legality. 
• Burden of Proof: Accused must prove exceptions (e.g., insanity) on a balance of probabilities. 
• Role of Motive: Absence of motive can cast doubt on intention, especially in atypical cases (e.g., mother killing children). 
• Judicial Discretion: Courts may reduce charges if mens rea is unproven, even if actus reus is established.