Notes

1. M.Sakthivel vs Sankareswari : on 15 July, 2015
Suit for specific performance is a discretionary remedy. The Court is bound to examine as to whether the plaintiff has come to the Court with clean hands, has been ready and willing to perform his/her part of the contract and there would be no undue advantage to him/her by directing specific performance. Here, in this subject case, the learned Subordinate Judge granted the relief of specific performance by way of a default decree, without considering the merits of the matter, solely on account of the failure of petitioners to contest the matter. In short, the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani, punished the petitioners for their failure to appear by passing an "automatic decree".

2.Karumilli Bharathi vs Prichikala Venkatachalam
(High Court Of Telangana)
Review Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2995 Of 1999 | 28-04-1999
C.R.P. No. 3871/1998 was filed by the defendant challenging the order dated 2.7.1998 passed by the Senior Civil Judge. Tadepalligudem in I.A. No. 486/1998 in O.S.No. 73/1997. I.A. No. 476/1998 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 176/197 days in filing the petition to set aside the decree passed in a summary suit under Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court dismissed it. The Civil Revision Petition filed by the defendant was allowed by me condoning the delay on a costs of Rs. 1,000/- vide may judgment dated 19.11.1998. The respondent- plaintiff has filed the present review petition seeking review of the order dated 19.11.1998 passed in C.R.P. No. 3871/1998. 2.
Karumilli Bharathi v. Prichikala Venkatachalam

3.G. Ratna Raj (D) by LRs. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent
Fund Ltd. & Anr. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Application for substitution is allowed.
2. These appeals are directed against the final
judgment and order dated 11.01.2008 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A.
Nos.299 & 300 of 2006 whereby the Division Bench

4.(2013) 3 MLJ (Crl.) 318 (SC)
State of Himachal Pradesh
Vs
Jai Chand
Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against acquittal – Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 498-A
– Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 27 – Accused No. 1/Respondent sentenced to imprisonment for life by
Sessions Judge for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC – On appeal, evidence of prosecution
witnesses rejected by Division Bench, respondent acquitted – Appeal – Whether medical evidence which clearly
establishes case of prosecution, was ignored by High Court – Held, post mortem report shows ligature mark on
neck of deceased –Opinion of doctor clear and definite that ligature mark in horizontal position cannot be caused
by hanging but could have been caused by strangulation – Medical evidence completely falsifies case of
respondent – Bucket used by respondent for drowning and strangulation recovered – Conduct of respondent also
not natural – Not a case of suicidal death but a case of homicidal death – High Court erred in formulating its own
opinion based on conjectural premises discarding opinion of medical experts regarding nature of injury and cause
of death – Findings by Division Bench rejecting doctor’s evidence and other material witnesses unsustainable –
Findings given by Trial Court accepting evidence of witnesses weighty and sound – Impugned order of acquittal
passed by Division Bench of High Court set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 302 for murder of his
wife, sentenced to imprisonment for life – Appeal allowed.

5. 2013-3-L.W.189
S. Krishnamurthy
Vs
Poubalane & Ors
C.P.C., Order 14, Rule 5/Framing of issue, Civil Court’s jurisdiction,need for,
Family Courts Act (1984), Sections 7,8/Suit for Partition, legitimacy, framing of issue, Civil Court’s
jurisdiction,
Constitution of India, Article 227/Framing of issues, Partition, legitimacy, Civil Court’s Jurisdiction,
challenge to.
Respondent filed a suit for partition and declaration – Revision petitioner filed an application under Order
14 Rule 5 CPC to frame additional issues.
Issue sought to be framed was whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide upon the
issue of legitimacy of the plaintiff.
Suit is not between the husband and wife, suit is filed for division of properties – Husband or wife are not
the parties to that proceedings – No declaration regarding legitimacy or illegitimacy is sought for against the father
or mother – Family Court cannot have exclusive jurisdiction and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction – Court below
has rightly recast the issue, whether plaintiff is the legitimate son of ‘KG’ – There is no need to frame an issue
relating to jurisdiction of the Civil Court.