Supreme Court: Magistrate can monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation U/S 156 of CRPC

 If such an application Under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011

Decided On: 20.03.2020

 M. Subramaniam  Vs.  S. Janaki 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Magistrate can recommend change of the investigating officer under investigation U/S 156 of CRPC so that a proper investigation is done in the matter

 This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. If such an application Under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011

Decided On: 20.03.2020

 M. Subramaniam  Vs.  S. Janaki 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Transferee cannot claim protection U/S 53-A of TPA if he fails to prove the execution of a sale agreement based on which possession was claimed.

 In terms of this provision, if the above preconditions stand

complied with, the transferor or any person claiming under him

shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and

person(s) claiming under him, any right in respect of the property

of which the transferee has taken or continue in possession, other

than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract,

notwithstanding the fact, that the transfer, as contemplated, had

not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for

the time being in force. Noticeably, an exception to this restraint

is carved out qua a transferee for consideration, who has no notice

of the contract or of the part-performance thereof. {Para 12}

13. Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act was inserted

partly to set at rest the conflict of views in this country, but

principally for the protection of ignorant transferees who take

possession or spend money in improvements relying on documents

which are ineffective as transfers or on contracts which cannot be

proved for want of registration. The effect of this section, is to

relax the strict provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the

Registration Act in favour of transferees in order to allow the

defence of part performance to be established.

14. Section 53-A is an exception to the provisions which require a

contract to be in writing and registered and which bar proof of

such contract by any other evidence. Consequently, the exception must be strictly construed.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.30804 of 2024

[Diary No(s). 56304/2024]

GIRIYAPPA & ANR. Vs KAMALAMMA & ORS. 

Citation: 2024 INSC 1043

Dated: 20th DECEMBER, 2024.

Print Page

From Possession to Paper: SC reaffirms adverse-possession title as a “pre‑existing right” (Mukesh v. State of M.P., 2024 INSC 1026) -A View point

 The Supreme Court in Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (decided 20 Dec 2024) held that where a compromise/consent decree merely recognises a litigant’s pre-existing right in the suit property (including a right that may have matured from continuous adverse possession), such a decree does not require compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, and—on the facts—cannot be treated as a “conveyance” attracting stamp duty for mutation.

This is significant for adverse possession because the Court expressly relies on Ravinder Kaur Grewal to reiterate that continuous, uninterrupted adverse possession can confer right, title and interest and can be used as a sword—supporting the “pre-existing right” analysis.

Print Page