In the case of Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad and Ors. v. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad (dead) through LRs and Ors. (2005) 11 SCC 314 , it is categorically held by the Apex Court after discussion of following decisions that judicial admissions by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties and admissions in the pleadings are admissible proprio vigore against the makers thereof. In Nagindas Ramdas Vs. Dalpatram Iccharam alias Brijram and others [AIR 1974 SC 471], this Court held: "Admissions if true and clear are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admission. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the rival as evidence are by themselves not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong." In Viswalakshmi Sasidharan (Mrs.) and Others Vs. Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Belgaum [(1997) 10 SCC 173], this Court held: "On the other hand, it is admitted that due to slump in the market they could not sell the goods, realize the price of the finished product and pay back the loan to the Bank. That admission stands in their way to plead at the later stage that they suffered loss on account of the deficiency in service..." In Kaveripatnam Subbaraya Setty Annaiah Setty Charities Trust Vs. S.K. Viswanatha Setty [(2004) 8 SCC 717], this Court deprecated raising a plea for the first time before the appellate court without amendment of plaint holding that when materials to substantiate such plea had not been brought on record and, thus, it is impermissible to consider the same, stating:"However, there is no material placed on record by way of pleadings to show whether the appellant is a religious or charitable institution. The plaint was never amended. The appellant seeks exemption. Exemption needs to be alleged and proved. Opportunity is required to be given to the respondent to meet the plea of exemption. In the circumstances, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court that the said plea was not open to the appellant at the stage of second appeal, particularly, in the absence of any material available to substantiate such plea." In Heeralal Vs. Kalyan Mal and Others [(1998) 1 SCC 278] following Modi Spinning (supra), it was observed:"The facts of the present case are entirely different and consequently the said decision also cannot be of any help for the learned counsel for the respondents. Even that apart the said decision of two learned Judges of this Court runs counter to a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the case of Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ladha Ram and Co., (1977) 1 SCR 728 : (AIR 1977 SC 680). In that case Ray, C.J., speaking for the Bench had to consider the question whether the defendant can be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff. It was held that such an inconsistent plea which would displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement cannot be allowed. If such amendments are allowed in the written statement plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admissions from the defendants."


The Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353 held as under: The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature  is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of Justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all other Courts in the hierarchy. And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

In Ramlal, & Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [(1962) 2 SCR 762], it was laid down that in showing sufficient cause to condone the delay, it is not necessary that the applicant/appellant has to explain whole of the period between the date of the judgment till the date of filing the appeal. It is sufficient that the applicant/appellant would explain the delay caused by the period between the last of the dates of limitation and the date on which the appeal/application is actually filed. What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules.

In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra [AIR 1976 SC 237], Supreme Court held that discretion given by Section 5 should not be defined or crystalized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction.

In Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram [AIR 1917 PC 156] it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal.

In Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari & Ors. [(1969) 1 SCR 1006], a Bench of three Judges had held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.

In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 694] which is a case of negligence of the counsel which misled a litigant into delayed pursuit of his remedy the default in delay was condoned.

In Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1970) 2 SCR 90], Supreme Court had held that there is no general proposition that mistake of counsel by itself is always sufficient cause for condonation of delay. It is always a question whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a devise tn cover an ulterior purpose. in that case it was held that the mistake committed by the counsel was bona fide and it was not tainted by any mala fide motive.

In State of Kerala v. E.K. Kuriyipe & Ors. [(1981) Supp. SCC 72], it was held that whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay is a question of fact dependant upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

In Smt. Milavi Devi v. Dina Nath [(1982) 3 SCR 366], it was held that the appellant had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. This Court under Art.136 can reassess the ground and in appropriate case set aside the order made by the High Court or the Tribunal and remit the matter for hearing on merits. It was accordingly allowed, delay was condoned and case was remitted for decision on merits.

In O.P. Kathpaliaa v. Lakhmir Singh (dead) & Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 66], a Bench of three Judges had held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. Delay was accordingly condoned.

In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantrag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107], a Bench of two Judges considered the question of the limitation in an appeal filed by the State and held that Section 5 was enacted in order to enable the court to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merits. The expression "sufficient cause is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of the justice-that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other courts in the hierarchy. This Court reiterated that the expression "every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. Judiciary is not respected on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Making a justice-oriented approach from this perspective, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of the appeal. The fact that it was the State which was seeking condonation and not a private party was altogether irrelevant. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant. The delay was accordingly condoned. Experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery ( no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. The State which represent collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant-non-grata status. The courts, therefore, have to be informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression of sufficient cause. Merit is preferred to scuttle a decision on merits in turning down the case on technicalities of delay in presenting the appeal. Delay was accordingly condoned, the order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the High Court for disposal on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.

In Smt. Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra [(1987) Supp. SCC 338], Supreme Court had held that the court should not adopt an injustice- oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The appeal was allowed, the delay was condoned and the matter was remitted for expeditious disposal in accordance with law.

In G. Ramegowda, Major & Ors, v. Spl, Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore [(1988) 2 SCC 142], it was held that no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel could be laid. The expression "sufficient cause" must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring the appeals are required to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona is imputable to the party seeking condonation of delay. In litigations to which Government is a party, there is yet another aspect which, perhaps, cannot be ignored. If appeals brought by Government are lost for such defaults, no person is individually affected; but what, in the ultimate analysis, suffers is public interest. The decisions of Government are collective and institutional decisions and do not share the characteristics of decisions of private individuals. The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for Governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it. It was, therefore, held that in assessing what constitutes sufficient cause for purposes of Section 5, it might, perhaps, be somewhat unrealistic to exclude from the consideration that go into the judicial verdict, these factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Government. Government decisions are proverbially slow encumbered, as they are, by a considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process of their making. A certain amount of latitude is, therefore, not impermissible. It is rightly said that those who bear responsibility of Government must have a little play at the joints'. Due recognition of these limitations on Governmental functioning - of course, within reasonable limits - is necessary if the judicial approach is not to be rendered unrealistic. It would, perhaps, be unfair and unrealistic to put Government and private parties on the same footing in all respects in such matters. Implicit in the very nature of Governmental functioning is procedural delay incidental to the decision making process. The delay of over one year was accordingly condoned.

In Scheduled Caste Coop. Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda v. Union of India & Ors. [(1991) 1 SCC 174], a Bench of three Judges of Supreme Court held that the bona fides of the parties are to be tested on merits and the delay of 1146 to 1079 days was not condoned on the ground that the parties approached the court after decision on merits was allowed in other cases by this Court. Therefore, it was held that it did not furnish a ground for condonation of delay under Section 5.

In Binod Bihari Singh v. Union of India [(1993) 1 SCC 572], it was held that it is not at all a fit case where in the anxiety to render justice to a party so that a just cause is not defeated, a pragmatic view should be taken by the court in considering sufficing cause for condonation of the delay under Section 5. It was held that when the party has come with a false plea to get rid of the bar of limitation, the court should not encourage such person by condoning the delay and result in the bar of limitation pleaded by the opposite party. This Court, therefore, refused to condone the delay in favour of the party who came forward with false plea.

In M/s. Shakambari & Co. v. Union of India [(1993) Supp. 1 SCS 487], a Bench of three Judges held that delay caused in filing the appeal due to fluctuation in laying down the law was held to be a sufficient cause and delay of 14 days was condoned.

In Ram Krishan & Anr. v. U.P. State Roadways Transport Corpn. & Anr. [(1994) Supp. 2 SCC 507], Supreme Court had held that although the story put forward by the applicant for not filing the application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act within the period of limitation was not found convincing but keeping in vies the facts and circumstances and cause of justice, the delay was condoned and the appeal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to dispose it on merits.

In Warlu v. Gangotribai & Anr. [(1995) Supp. 1 SCC 37] a three-Judge Bench condoned delay of 11 years in filing the special leave petition.

Following these Obove judgments, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1623 , has held as under: It is notorious and common knowledge that delay in more than 60 per cent of the cases filed in this Court - be it by private party or the State - are barred by limitation and this Court generally adopts liberal approach in condonation of delay finding somewhat sufficient cause to decide the appeal on merits. It is equally common knowledge that litigants including the State are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. When the State is an applicant, praying for condonation of delay, it is common knowledge that on account of impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file-pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve, but the State represents collective cause of the community. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for considerable time causing delay intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of procedural red tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore, certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of the Governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption of pragmatic approach in justice-oriented process. The Court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the cours or whether cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers take a decision or give appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants. Considered from this perspective, it must be held that the delay of 109 days in this case has been explained and that it is a fit case for condonation of the delay. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for condoning the delay. The delay is accordingly condoned. The High Court is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.


In The State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan, 1951 SCR 525, it was held that the Directive Principles of State Policy have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights. The view was reiterated in Deep Chand and Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 8.

The Court went on to hold that disobedience to Directive Principles cannot affect the legislative power of the State. So was the view taken in In Re : The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 , 1959 SCR 995. With L.C. Golak Nath and others v. State of Punjab and Another, (1967) 2 SCR 762, the Supreme Court departed from the rigid rule of subordinating Directive Principles and entered the era of harmonious construction. The need for avoiding a conflict between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles was emphasized, appealing to the legislature and the courts to strike a balance between the two as far as possible.

Having noticed Champakam  even the Constitution Bench in Quareshi-I chose to make a headway and held that the Directive Principles nevertheless are fundamental in the governance of the country and it is the duty of the State to give effect to them. "A harmonious interpretation has to be placed upon the Constitution and so interpreted it means that the State should certainly implement the directive principles but it must do so in such a way that its laws do not take away or abridge the fundamental rights, for otherwise the protecting provisions of Part III will be a 'mere rope of sand'. "Thus, Quareshi-I did take note of the status of Directive Principles having been elevated from 'sub-ordinate' or 'sub-servient' to 'partner' of Fundamental Rights in guiding the nation.

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., (1973) 4 SCC 225, a thirteen-Judge Bench decision of this Court is a turning point in the history of Directive Principles jurisprudence. This decision clearly mandated the need for bearing in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy while judging the reasonableness of the restriction imposed on Fundamental Rights. Several opinions were recorded in Kesavananda Bharati and quoting from them would significantly increase the length of this judgment. For our purpose, it would suffice to refer to the seven-Judge Bench decision in Pathumma and Others v. State of Kerala and Ors., (1978) 2 SCC 1, wherein the learned Judges neatly summed up the ratio of Kesavananda Bharati and other decisions which are relevant for our purpose. Pathumma holds :-
"(1) Courts interpret the constitutional provisions against the social setting of the country so as to show a complete consciousness and deep awareness of the growing requirements of society, the increasing needs of the nation, the burning problems of the day and the complex issues facing the people, which the legislature, in its wisdom, through beneficial legislation, seeks to solve. The judicial approach should be dynamic rather than static, pragmatic and not pedantic and elastic rather than rigid. This Court while acting as a sentinel on the qui vive to protect fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of the country must try to strike a just balance between the fundamental rights and the larger and broader interests of society so that when such a right clashes with a larger interest of the country it must yield to the latter.
(2) The Legislature is in the best position to understand and appreciate the needs of the people as enjoined in the Constitution. The Court will interfere in this process only when the statute is clearly violative of the right conferred on a citizen under Part III or when the Act is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature. The courts have recognised that there is always a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the statutes and the onus to prove its invalidity lies on the party which assails it.
(3) The right conferred by Article 19(1)(f) is conditioned by the various factors mentioned in clause (5).  (4) The following tests have been laid down as guidelines to indicate in what particular circumstances a restriction can be regarded as reasonable:
(a) In judging the reasonableness of the restriction the court has to bear in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy.
(b) The restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so as to go beyond the requirements of the interests of the general public. The legislature must take intelligent care and deliberation in choosing the course which is dictated by reason and good conscience so as to strike a just balance between the freedom in the article and the social control permitted by the restrictions under the article.
(c) No abstract or general pattern or fixed principle can be laid down so as to be of universal application. It will have to vary from case to case and having regard to the changing conditions, the values of human life, social philosophy of the Constitution, prevailing conditions and the surrounding circumstances all of which must enter into the judicial verdict.
(d) The Court is to examine the nature and extent, the purport and content of the right, the nature of the evil sought to be remedied by the statute, the ratio of harm caused to the citizen and the benefit conferred on the person or the community for whose benefit the legislation is passed.
(e) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection between the restriction imposed and the object which is sought to be achieved.
(f) The needs of the prevailing social values must be satisfied by the restrictions meant to protect social welfare.
(g) The restriction has to be viewed not only from the point of view of the citizen but the problem before the legislature and the object which is sought to be achieved by the statute. In other words, the Court must see whether the social control envisaged by Article 19 (1) is being effectuated by the restrictions imposed on the fundamental right. However important the right of a citizen or an individual may be it has to yield to the larger interests of the country or the community.
(h) The Court is entitled to take into consideration matters of common report history of the times and matters of common knowledge and the circumstances existing at the time of the legislation for this purpose.

In State of Kerala and Anr. v. N.M. Thomas and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 310, also a seven-Judge Bench of this Court culled out and summarized the ratio of this Court in Kesavananda Bharati. Fazal Ali, J extracted and set out the relevant extract from the opinion of several Judges in Kesavananda Bharati and then opined: "In view of the principles adumbrated by this Court it is clear that the directive principles form the fundamental feature and the social conscience of the Constitution and the Constitution enjoins upon the State to implement these directive principles. The directives thus provide the policy, the guidelines and the end of socio-economic freedom and Articles 14 and 16 are the means to implement the policy to achieve the ends sought to be promoted by the directive principles. So far as the courts are concerned where there is no apparent inconsistency between the directive principles contained in Part IV and the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III, which in fact supplement each other, there is no difficulty in putting a harmonious construction which advances the object of the Constitution. Once this basic fact is kept in mind, the interpretation of Articles 14 and 16 and their scope and ambit become as clear as day."

The message of Kesavananda Bharati is clear. The interest of a citizen or section of a community, howsoever important, is secondary to the interest of the country or community as a whole. For judging the reasonability of restrictions imposed on Fundamental Rights the relevant considerations are not only those as stated in Article 19 itself or in Part-III of the Constitution; the Directive Principles stated in Part-IV are also relevant. Changing factual conditions and State policy, including the one reflected in the impugned enactment, have to be considered and given weightage to by the courts while deciding the constitutional validity of legislative enactments. A restriction placed on any Fundamental Right, aimed at securing Directive Principles will be held as reasonable and hence intra vires subject to two limitations : first, that it does not run in clear conflict with the fundamental right, and secondly, that it has been enacted within the legislative competence of the enacting legislature under Part XI Chapter I of the Constitution.

In Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors. v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai & Anr., (1986) 3 SCC 20, what was impugned before the High Court was a standing order issued by the Municipal Commissioner of the State of Ahmedabad, increasing the number of days on which slaughter houses should be kept closed to seven, in supersession of the earlier standing order which directed the closure for only four days. The writ petitioner, a beef dealer, challenged the constitutional validity of the impugned standing orders (both, the earlier and the subsequent one) as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The challenge based on Articles 14 of the Constitution was turned down both by the High Court and the Supreme Court. However, the High Court had struck down the seven days closure as not "in the interests of the general public" and hence not protected by Clause (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution. In appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation, the Constitution Bench reversed the Judgment of the High Court and held that the objects sought to be achieved by the impugned standing orders were the preservation, protection and improvement of live-stock, which is one of the Directive Principles. Cows, bulls, bullocks and calves of cows are no doubt the most important cattle for our agricultural economy. They form a separate class and are entitled to be treated differently from other animals such as goats and sheep, which are slaughtered. The Constitution Bench ruled that the expression "in the interests of general public" is of a wide import covering public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community and the objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution.

In Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Others. v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Anr. , (1992) 3 SCC 336, the Constitution Bench clearly ruled  "Ordinarily any restriction so imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a directive principle can be presumed to be a reasonable restriction in public interest."

Similar view is taken in Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. and Anr. , (1995) 1 SCC 501. Directive Principles Long back in The State of Bombay and anr. v. F.N. Balsara, 1951 SCR 682, a Constitution Bench had ruled that in judging the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed on the Fundamental Rights, one has to bear in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy set-forth in Part IV of the Constitution, while examining the challenge to the constitutional validity of law by reference to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

In a comparatively recent decision of this Court in M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector, Kerala Govt. and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 227, this Court, on a conspectus of its various prior decisions summed up principles as 'clearly discernible', out of which three that are relevant for our purpose, are extracted and reproduced hereunder. "On a conspectus of various decisions of this Court, the following principles are clearly discernible:
(1) While considering the reasonableness of the restrictions, the court has to keep in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy. ……..
(3) In order to judge the reasonableness of the restrictions, no abstract or general pattern or a fixed principle can be laid down so as to be of universal application and the same will vary from case to case as also with regard to changing conditions, values of human life, social philosophy of the Constitution, prevailing conditions and the surrounding circumstances………………..
(6) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection between the restrictions imposed and the object sought to be achieved. If there is a direct nexus between the restrictions and the object of the Act, then a strong presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the Act will naturally arise.

Very recently in Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 589, this Court while dealing with the case of a total prohibition reiterated that 'regulation' includes 'prohibition' and in order to determine whether total prohibition would be reasonable, the Court has to balance the direct impact on the fundamental right of the citizens as against the greater public or social interest sought to be ensured. Implementation of the Directive Principles contained in Part IV is within the expression of 'restriction in the interests of the general public'.

Post Kesavananda Bharati so far as the determination of the position of Directive Principles, vis-a-vis Fundamental Rights are concerned, it has been an era of positivism and creativity. Article 37 of the Constitution which while declaring the Directive Principles to be unenforceable by any Court goes on to say  "that they are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country." Several clauses of Article 37 themselves need to be harmoniously construed assigning equal weightage to all of them. The end part of Article 37  "It shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws" is not a pariah but a constitutional mandate. The series of decisions which we have referred to hereinabove and the series of decisions which formulate the 3-stages of development of the relationship between Directive Principles and Fundamental Rights undoubtedly hold that, while interpreting the interplay of rights and restrictions, Part-III (Fundamental Rights) and Part-IV (Directive Principles) have to be read together. The restriction which can be placed on the rights listed in Article 19(1) are not subject only to Articles 19(2) to 19(6); the provisions contained in the chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy can also be pressed into service and relied on for the purpose of adjudging the reasonability of restrictions placed on the Fundamental Rights.

In AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS and Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 428, a three-Judge Bench of this Court made it clear that fundamental duties, though not enforceable by writ of the court, yet provide valuable guidance and aid to interpretation and resolution of constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt, peoples' wish as expressed through Article 51-A can serve as a guide not only for resolving the issue but also for constructing or moulding the relief to be given by the courts. The fundamental duties must be given their full meaning as expected by the enactment of the Forty-second Amendment. The Court further held that the State is, in a sense, 'all the citizens placed together' and, therefore, though Article 51A does not expressly cast any fundamental duty on the State, the fact remains that the duty of every citizen of India is, collectively speaking, the duty of the State.

In Mohan Kumar Singhania & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594, a governmental decision to give utmost importance to the training programme of the Indian Administrative Service selectees was upheld by deriving support from Article 51-A(j) of the Constitution, holding that the governmental decision was in consonance with one of the fundamental duties.

In State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra & Ors., (1997) 4 SCC 7, this Court interpreted the object of writing the confidential reports and making entries in the character rolls by deriving support from Article 51-A(j) which enjoins upon every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to strive towards excellence, individually and collectively.

In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 1986 (Supp) SCC 517, a complete ban and closing of mining operations carried on in the Mussoorie hills was held to be sustainable by deriving support from the fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution. The Court held that preservation of the environment and keeping the ecological balance unaffected is a task which not only Governments but also every citizen must undertake. It is a social obligation of the State as well as of the individuals.

In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606, a three-Judge Bench of this Court read Article 48-A and Article 51-A together as laying down the foundation for a jurisprudence of environmental protection and held that "Today, the State and the citizens are under a fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life and to have compassion for living creatures". 


K. Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 655], majority of the Constitution Bench upheld the power of the police to investigate into the disproportionate assets alleged to be possessed by a Judge, an offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 subject to prior sanction of the Chief Justice of India to maintain independence of the judiciary. By interpretive process, the Court carved out primacy to the role of the Chief Justice of India, whose efficacy in a case like one at hand would be considered at a later stage. Duty of the Judge to maintain high standard of conduct. Its judicial individualism - whether protection imperative? Judicial office is essentially a public trust. Society is, therefore, entitled to except that a Judge must be a man of high integrity, honesty and required to have moral vigour, ethical firmness and impervious to corrupt or venial influences. He is required to keep most exacting standards of propriety in judicial conduct. Any conduct which tends to undermine public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the court would be deleterious to the efficacy of judicial process. Society, therefore, expects higher standards of conduct and rectitude from a Judge. Unwritten code of conduct is writ large for judicial officers to emulate and imbibe high moral or ethical standards expected of a higher judicial functionary, as wholesome standard of conduct which would generate public confidence, accord dignity to the judicial office and enhance public image, not only of the Judge but the court itself. It is, therefore, a basic requirement that a Judge's official and personal conduct be free from impropriety; the same must be in tune with the highest standard of propriety and probity. The standard of conduct is higher than expected of a layman and also higher than expected of an advocate. In fact, even his private life must adhere to high standards of probity and propriety, higher than those deemed acceptable for others. Therefore, the Judge can ill-afford to seek shelter from the fallen standard in the society.

In Krishna Swami v. Union of India & Ors. [(1992) 4 SCC 605 at 650-51], one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J). held that the holder of office of the Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court should, therefore, be above the conduct of ordinary mortals in the society. The standards of judicial behaviour, both on and off the Bench, are normally high. There cannot, however, be any fixed or set principles, but an unwritten code of conduct of well-established traditions is the guidelines for judicial conduct. The conduct that tends to undermine the public confidence in the character, integrity or impartiality of the Judge must be eschewed. It is expected of him to voluntarily set forth wholesome standards of conduct reaffirming fitness to higher responsibilities. To keep the stream of justice clean and pure, the Judge must be endowed with sterling character, impeccable integrity and upright behaviour. Erosion thereof would undermine the efficacy of the rule of law and the working of the Constitution itself. The Judges of higher echelons, therefore, should not be mere men of clay with all the frailties and foibles, human failings and weak character which may be found in those in other walks of life. They should be men of fighting faith with tough fibre not susceptible to any pressure, economic, political or any sort. The actual as well as the apparent independence of judiciary would be transparent only when the office holders endow those qualities which would operate as impregnable fortress against surreptitious attempts to undermine the independence of the judiciary. In short, the behaviour of the Judge is the bastion for the people to reap the fruits of the democracy, liberty and justice and the antithesis rocks the bottom of the rule of law.
In S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India [(1981) Supp. SCC 87] in paragraph 27, this Court held that if there is one principle which runs through the entire fabric of the Constitution it is the principle of the rule of law, and under the Constitution it is the judiciary which is entrusted with the task of keeping every organ of the State within the limits of the law and thereby making the rule of law meaningful and effective. Judicial review is one of the most potent weapons in the armoury of law. The judiciary seeks to protect the citizen against violation of his constitutional or legal rights or misuse or abuse of power by the State or its officers. The judiciary stands between the citizen and the State as a bulwark against executive excesses and misuse or abuse of power by the executive. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that the judiciary must be free from executive pressure or influence which has been secured by making elaborate provisions in the Constitution with details. The independence of judiciary is not limited only to the independence from the executive pressure or influence; it is a wider concept which takes within its sweep independence from any other pressure and prejudices. It has many dimensions, viz., fearlessness of other power centers, economic or political, and freedom from prejudices acquired and nourished by the class to which the judges belong.
In P.N. Duda vs. P. Shiv Shankar [AIR 1988 SC 1208]
Administration of justice and Judges are open to public criticism and public scrutiny. Judges have their accountability to the society and their accountability must be judged by their conscience and oath of their office, that is to defend and uphold the Constitution and the laws without fear and favour. This the Judges must do in the light given to them to determine what is right. Any criticism about the judicial system or the Judges which hampers the administration of justice or which erodes the faith in the objective approach of Judges and brings administration of justice into ridicule must be prevented. The contempt of Court proceedings arise out of that attempt. Judgments can be criticised, motives of the Judges need not be attributed. It brings the administration of Justice into deep disrepute. Faith in the administration of justice is one of the pillars through which democratic institution functions and sustains. In the free market place of ideas, criticism about the judicial system or Judges should be welcomed, so long as such criticisms do not impair or hamper the administration of justice. This is how the courts should approach the powers vested in them as judges to punish a person for an alleged contempt, be it by taking notice of the matter suo motu or at the behest of the litigant or lawyer. It has to be admitted frankly and fairly that there has been erosion of faith in the dignity of the Court and in the majesty of law and that has been caused not so much by scandalising remarks made by politicians or ministers but the inability of the courts of law to deliver quick and substantial justice to the needy. It is a criticism which judges and lawyers must make about themselves. We must turn the search light inwards. At the same time, the Court cannot be oblivious of the attempts made to decry or denigrate the judicial process, if it is seriously done.  
In Rama Dayal Markarha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1978] 3 S.C.R. 497, where it was held that fair and reasonable criticism of a judgment which is a public document or which is a public act of a Judge concerned with administration of justice would not constitute contempt. In fact, such a fair and reasonable criticism must be encouraged because after all no one, much less Judges, can claim infallibility. Such a criticism may fairly assert that the judgment is incorrect or an error has been committed with regard to law or established facts. But when it is said that the Judge had a predisposition to convict or deliberately took a turn in discussion of evidence because he had already made up his mind to convict the accused or has a wayward bend of mind, is attributing motives, lack of dispassionate and objective approach and analysis and prejudging of issues, that would bring administration of justice into ridicule. Such criticism sometime interferes with the administration of justice and that must be judged by the yardstick whether it brings the administration of justice into ridicule or hampers administration of justice. After all, it cannot be denied that pre-disposition or subtle prejudice or unconscious prejudice or what in Indian language is called "Sanskar" are inarticulate major premises in decision making process. That element in decision making process cannot be denied, it should be taken note of.
It has to be borne in mind, as has been said by Banjamin N. Cardozo in "The Nature of the Judicial Process" that the judge as the interpreter for the community of its sense of law and order must supply omissions, correct uncertainties and harmonize results with justice through a method of free decision. Courts are to "search for light among the social elements of every kind that are the living force behind the facts they deal with".  
In E.M. Sankaran Namboodiripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar, [1971] I S.C.R. 697, this Court had to deal with this jurisdiction in respect of Mr. Namboodiripad who at the relevant time was the Chief Minister of Kerala. He had held a press conference in November, 1976 and made various critical remarks relating to the judiciary which inter alia was described by him as "an instrument of oppression" and the Judges as "dominated by class hatred, class prejudices", "instinctively" favouring the rich against the poor. He also stated that as part of 564 the ruling classes the judiciary "works against workers, peasants and A other sections of the working classes" and "the law and the system of judiciary essentially served the exploiting classes" (emphasis supplied) It was found that these remarks were reported in the newspapers and thereafter proceedings commenced in the High Court of Kerala. The appellant Shri Namboodiripad was called upon to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. In his affidavit the appellant stated that the reports were "substantially correct", though incomplete in some respects. The appellant further claimed that his observations did no more than give expression to the Marxist Philosophy and what was contained in the programme of the Communist Party of India. By a majority judgment of the High Court the appellant was convicted for contempt of court and fined Rs. 1000 or simple imprisonment for one month. He moved this Court by an appeal. He contended that the law of contempt must be read without encroaching upon the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that the intention of the appellant in making his remarks at the press conference should be examined in the light of his political views which he was at liberty to put before the people. He sought to justify the remarks as an exposition of his ideology which he claimed was based on the teachigs of Marx and Engels and on this ground claimed protection of the first clause of Article 19(1) of the Constitution. The conviction of the appellant was upheld by this Court. It was observed by Hidayatullah, C.J speaking for the Court that the law punishes not only acts which do not in fact interfere with the courts and administration of justice but also those which have that tendency, that is to say, are likely to produce a particular result. Judged from the angle of courts and administration of justice, there was no doubt that the appellant was guilty of contempt of court. The Chief Justice observed whether the appellant misunderstood the teachings of Marx and Engels or deliberately distorted them was not to mush purpose. The likely effect of his words must be seen and they clearly had the effect of lowering the prestige of judges and courts in the eyes of the people. (emphasis supplied) That he did not intend any such result may be a matter for consideration in the sentence to be imposed on him but could not serve as a justification. This Court further held that the appellant had misguided himself about the true teachings of Marx, Engles and Lenin. According to the Chief Justice he had misunderstood the attack by them on State and the laws as involving an attack on the Judiciary. No doubt the courts, while upholding the laws and enforcing them, do give support to the State but they do not do so out of any impure motives. To charge the Judiciary as an instrument of oppression, the Judges as guided and dominated by class hatred, class 565 interests and class prejudices, instinctively favouring the rich against the poor is to draw a very distorted and poor picture of the Judiciary. It A was clear that the appellant bore an attack upon judges which was calculated to raise in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with and distrust of all judicial decisions. According to the Chief Justice it weakened the authority of law and law courts (emphasis supplied). It was further held that while the spirit underlying Article 19(1)(a), must have due play, the Court could not overlook the provisions of the second clause of that Article. Its provisions are to be read with Articles 129 and 215 which specially confer on this Court and the High Courts the power to punish for contempt of themselves. Although Article 19(1)(a) guaranteed complete freedom of speech and expression, it also made an exception in respect of contempt of court. While the right is essential to a free society, the Constitution had itself imposed restrictions in relation to contempt of court and it could not therefore be said that the right abolished the law of contempt or that attack upon judges and courts would be condoned.

In Shri Baradakanta Mishra etc. v. The Registrar of Orissa High Court & Anr. etc. [1974) 1 SCC 374], the appellant, a District judge was suspended and a spate of litigation in that behalf had ensued. When an order of suspension was set aside by the Government, in exercise of his power under Article 235, the High Court further ordered suspension of him pending enquiry of the allegations made against judges in a memorandum and letters sent to the Governor in a vilificatory criticism of the judges in their function on the administration side. When contempt action was initiated, he challenged the jurisdiction of the court and the competency to initiate action for contempt on the specious plea that the acts done by the High Court were on the administration side and were not judicial actions. A three-Judge Bench had negatived the plea and convicted the appellant under section 12 of the Act. When the matter had come up before this court, a constitution Bench considered the gravamen of the imputations and had held that the allegations made against the court in the memo submitted to the Governor constituted scurrilous allegations against the High Court. Again some of the allegations made in the memo of appeal and various communications to the Supreme Court were held to constitute contempt of the Court and the conviction was confirmed though sentence was reduced. This Court held that imputation of improper motives, bias and prejudice constitutes contempt under Section 2[c] of the Act.

In L.D. Jaikwal v. State of U.P. [1984) 3 SCC 405], the conduct of an advocate in using abusive language in pleadings and vilification of a judge was held to constitute contempt under Section 2 [c] (i) of the Act and his sentence under Section 12 of the Act was upheld.

In Re: Shri S. Mulgaokar [(1978) 3 SCC 497] the conduct of a senior advocate in publishing a pamphlet imputing improper motives to the Magistrate who decided his case was held to constitute substantial interference with the due administration of justice. His conviction was accordingly upheld though sentence was reduced.

In K.A. Mohammed Ali v. C.N. Prasannan [(1994) Supp. 3 SCC 509] while arguing the case, the counsel raised his voice unusually high to the annoyance of the Magistrate and used derogatory language against the Magistrate before whom he conducted the trial of an accused. His conviction and sentence for contempt was accordingly upheld.

While allowing a writ petition, one of the Judges deliv- ered the main Judgment invalidating the decision of the Government on the ground that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The other Judge delivered a separate, but concurring opinion which contained highly disparaging re- marks attributing mala fides and underhand dealing on the part of the State Government. Several appeals were filed against the said decision before this Court.
Judicial restraint and discipline are as neces- sary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to the effectiveness of the army. The duty of restraint, this humility of function should be a constant theme of our judges. This quality in decision making is as much necessary for judges to command respect as to protect the independence of the judiciary..Judicial restraint in this regard might better be called judicial respect; that is, respect by the judiciary. Respect to those who come before the Court as well to other co-ordinate branches of the State, the Execu- tive and the Legislature. There must be mutual respect. When these qualities fail or when litigants and public believe that the judge has failed in these qualities, it will be neither good for the judge nor for the judicial process.

The Judges Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decisions, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The Judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the Court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. The Court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct. 


 1993 (4) SCC 38,: -   The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956: Section 8--Intent of--Whether protects the property of a minor from the depredations of the parents even. Words and Phrases--Voidable and Void--Sale of the property of the minor by his mother without permission of the court and attested by the father Whether voidable or void. Sale of the property of the minor by his mother and attested by his father--Interpretation of--Whether amounts to a sale by the natural guardian of the minor for legal necessity. and benefit of the minor.

The mother of the respondent minors, acting as their guardian, sold their land, while they were still minors, to the appellant under a registered sale deed dated July 30,1964. The respondents, upon attaining majority, sued the appellant for possession of the said land on the ground that the sale thereof, having been made without the permission of the court, was void. The appellant in his written statement and at the time of hearing of the suit contended that the sale deed had been attested by the father of the respondents and the sale should, therefore, he deemed to have been a sale by the legal guardian of the respondents. It was also pleaded that the sale had been for legal necessity and the benefit of the respondents. It was also alleged that the suit was barred by limitation because the sale was voidable and not void and the suit had not been brought within three years of each of the respondents attaining majority. The trial court framed appropriate issues and came to the conclusion that it had not been proved that the sale was for legal necessity or for the benefit of the respondents, that the sale by the respondent's mother without the permission of the court was void, and the sale was void and not voidable and the suit was, therefore, in time and was decreed. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Additional Distt. Judge and the High Court failed. The appellant, therefore, preferred this appeal by special leave. Dismissing the appeal, this court,
1. The provisions of section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 are devised to fully protect the property (.if a minor, even from the depredations of his parents. Section 8 empowers only the legal guardian to alienate a minor's immovable property provided it is for the necessity or benefit of the minor or his estate and it further requires that such alienation shall be effected after the permission of the Court has been obtained."
2. It was difficult, therefore, to hold that the sale, by reason of the fact that the mother of the minor respondents signed the sale deed and the father attested it, was voidable, not void.
3. The attestation of the sale deed by the father showed that he was very much existent and in the picture. If he was, then the sale by the mother, notwithstanding the fact that the father attested it, cannot he held to be sale by the father and natural guardian satisfying the requirements of section 8. 
Jijabai Vithalrao Gajre vs. Pathankhan and ors., AIR 1971 S.C. 315. This was a case in which it was held that the position in Hindu law was that when the father was alive he was the natural guardian and it was only after him that the mother became the natural guardian. Where the father was alive but had fallen out with the mother of the minor child and was living separately for several years without taking any interest in the affairs of the minor, who was in the keeping and care of the mother, it was held that, in the peculiar circumstances, the father should be treated as if nonexistent and, therefore, the mother could be considered as the natural guardian of the minor's person as well as property, having power to bind the minor by dealing with her immovable property.


Supreme Court in Ammathayee alias Perumalakkal and Another V. Kumaresan alias Balakrishnan and Others AIR 1967 SC 569 summarised the Hindu Law on the question of gifts of ancestral properties in the following words: Hindu law on the question of gifts of ancestral property is well settled. So far as moveable ancestral property is concerned, a gift out of affection may be made to a wife, to a daughter and even to a son, provided the gift is within reasonable limits. A gift for example of the whole or almost the whole of the ancestral moveable property cannot be upheld as a gift through affection. But so far as immovable ancestral property is concerned, the power of gift is much more circumscribed than in the case of moveable ancestral property. A Hindu father or any other managing member has power to make a gift of ancestral immovable property within reasonable limits for pious purposes; Now what is generally understood by pious purposes is gift for charitable and/or religious purposes. But this Court has extended the meaning of pious purposes to cases where a Hindu father makes a gift within reasonable limits of immovable ancestral property to his daughter in fulfilment of an antenuptial promise made on the occasion of the settlement of the terms of her marriage, and the same can also be done by the mother in case the father is dead.

  AIR 2000 SC 3529 THIMMAIAH VS NINGAMMA The Karta is competent or has the power to dispose of coparcenary property only if (a) the disposition is of a reasonable portion of the coparcenary property and (b) the disposition is for a recognised pious purpose.

 This Court in Guramma V. Mallappa AIR 1964 SC 510 has envisaged three situations of voidable transactions. It was held that a managing member may alienate joint family property in three situations namely: (i) legal necessity, or (ii) benefit of the estate or (iii) with the consent of all the coparceners of the family. Where the alienation is not with the consent of all the coparceners, it is voidable at the instance of the coparcener whose consent has not been obtained.

  In this connection, a reference may be made in the case of State Bank of India Vs. Ghamandi Ram reported in AIR 1969 SC 1333, it was held thus:- "According to the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law all the property of a Hindu Joint Family is held in collective ownership by all the coparceners in the quasi-corporate copacity. The textual authority of the Mitakshara Lays down in express terms that the joint famil;y property is held in trust from the joint family members then living and thereafter to be both. The incidents of coparcernership under the Mitakshara Law are: first the lineal male descendants of a person upto the third generation, acquire on birth ownership in the ancestral properties of such person; Secondly that such descendants can at any time work out their rights by asking for partition; thirdly, that till partition each member has got ownership extending over the entire property co- jointly with the rest; forthly, that as a result of such co-ownership the possession and enjoyment of the properties is common fifthly that no alienation of the property is possible unless it before necessity, without the concurrence of the coparceners, and sixthly; that the interest of a deceased member lapses on his death to the survivors. A coparcenary under the Mitakshara School is a creature of law and cannot arise by act of parties except in so far that on adoption the adopted son becomes a co-parcener with his adoptive father as regards the ancestral properties of the letter."

The concept of coparcener as given in the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law as already mentioned above, is that of a joint family property wherein all the members of the coparceners share equally. In this connection a reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Narayan Rao Sham Rao Deshmukh & Ors. reported in (1985) 2 SCC 321 in which Their Lordships have held as follows: " A Hindu coparcenary is however, a narrower body than the joint family. Only males who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property can be members of the coparcenary or coparceners. A male member of a joint family and his sons, grandsons and great grandsons constitute a coparcenary. A coparcener acquires right in the coparcenary property by birth but his right can be definitely ascertained only when a partition takes place. When the family is joint, the extent of the share of a coparcener cannot be definitely predicated since it is always capable of fluctuating."

  In N.R. Raghavachariar's Hindu Law Principles and precedents " 8th Edition (1987) at page 230 under the heading 'Rights of Coparceners' it is said thus:- "The following are the rights of a coparcener :- (1) Right by birth (2) Right by survivorship, (3) Right to partition, (4) Right to joint possession and enjoyment, (5) Right to restrain unauthorized acts (6) Right of alienation, (7) Right to accounts and (8) Right to make self-acquisition".

  Likewise, S.V. Gupta, author of Hindu Law, Vol. 1, Third Edition (1981) at page 162, the learned author deals with the rights of a coparcener. He says thus:- "Until partition, coparcener is entitled to:- (1) join possession and enjoyment of joint family property (2) the right to take the joint family property by survivorship, and (3) the right to demand partition of the joint family property"

  The position in Hindu law is that whereas the father has the power to gift ancestral movables within reasonable limits, he has no such power with regard to the ancestral immovable property or coparcenary property. He can, however make a gift within reasonable limits of ancestral immovable property for "pious purposes". However, the alienation must be by an act inter vivos, and not by will. This Court has extended the rule and held that the father was competent to make a gift of immovable property to a daughter, if the gift is of reasonable extent having regard to the properties held by the family.

This Court considered the question of extended meaning given in numerous decisions for "pious purposes" in Kamla Devi vs. Bachulal Gupta [ 1957 SCR 452]. In the said case a Hindu widow in fulfilment of an ante-nuptial promise made on the occasion of the settlement of the terms of marriage of her daughter, executed a registered deed of gift in respect of 4 houses allotted to her share in a partition decree, in favour of her daughter as her marriage dowry, after two years of her marriage. The partition decree had given her the right to the income from property but she had no right to part with the corpus of the property to the prejudice of the reversioners. Her step sons brought a suit for declaration that the deed of gift was void and inoperative and could not bind the reversioners. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the suit holding that the gift was not valid. This Court accepted the appeal and held that the gift made in favour of the daughter was valid in law and binding on the reversioners. This point was again examined in depth by this Court in Guramma Bhratar Chanbasappa Deshmukh and another vs. Malappa 1964 (4) SCR 497 and it was held:- "The legal position may be summarized thus: The Hindu law texts conferred a right upon a daughter or a sister, as the case may be, to have a share in the family property at the time of partition. That right was lost by efflux of time. But it became crystallized into a moral obligation. The father or his representative can make a valid gift, by way of reasonable provision for the maintenance of the daughter, regard being had to the financial and other relevant circumstances of the family. By custom or by convenience, such gifts are made at the time of marriage, but the right of the father or his representative to make such a gift is not confined to the marriage occasion. It is a moral obligation and it continues to subsist till it is discharged. Marriage is only a customary occasion for such a gift. But the obligation can be discharged at any time, either during the lifetime of the father or thereafter. It is not possible to lay down a hard and fast rule, prescribing the quantitative limits of such a gift as that would depend on the facts of each case and it can only be decided by Courts, regard being had to the overall picture of the extent of the family estate, the number of daughters to be provided for and other paramount charges and other similar circumstances. If the father is within his rights to make a gift of a reasonable extent of the family property for the maintenance of a daughter, it cannot be said that the said gift must be made only by one document or only at a single point of time. The validity or the reasonableness of a gift does not depend upon the plurality of documents but on the power of the father to make a gift and the reasonableness of the gift so made. If once the power is granted and the reasonableness of the gift is not disputed, the fact that two gift deeds were executed instead of one, cannot make the gift anytheless a valid one."

  In M.V.S. Manikayala Rao vs. M. Narasimhaswami & Ors. [(AIR 1966 SC 470], this Court held: "Now, it is well settled that the purchaser of a coparcener's undivided interest in joint family property is not entitled to possession of what he has purchased. His only right is to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment to him of that which on partition might be found to fall to the share of the coparcener whose share he had purchased."

  Bharat Singh & Anr. vs. Bhagirathi [(1966) 1 SCR 606], wherein this Court held: "Admissions have to be clear if they are to be used against the person making them. Admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of ss. 17 and 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. We are of opinion that the admissions duly proved are admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether that party when appearing as witness was confronted with those statements in case it made a statement contrary to those admissions."


In Pratap Rai Tanwani Vs. Uttam Chand (2004  (8) SCC 490), Supreme  Court held that subsequent  developments can be taken into consideration to afford relief  to the parties, provided only when such developments had a material impact on those rights and obligations.

In Ramesh Kumar Vs.  Kesho Ram [1992 Supp. (2) SCC 623 where Supreme  Court  observed as follows : -  "The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of the parties are  adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a `cautious cognizance of the subsequent  changes of fact and law to mould the relief."


Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar Vs. Ramaratan Bapu & Ors (2004) 7 SCC 181  "material facts" are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or defendant's defence depends. Broadly speaking, all primary or basic facts which are necessary either to prove the cause of action by the plaintiff or defence by the defendant are "material facts". Material facts are facts which, if established, would give the petitioner the relief asked for. But again, what could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. 

 In Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13 SCC 511, Supreme Court again reiterated the distinction between `material facts' and `material particulars' and observed as under: "51. A distinction between "material facts" and "particulars", however, must not be overlooked. "Material facts" are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the plaintiff or by the defendant in support of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action or defence. "Particulars", on the other hand, are details in support of material facts pleaded by the party. They amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving distinctive touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more informative. "Particulars" thus ensure conduct of fair trial and would not take the opposite party by surprise. 52. All "material facts" must be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by him. Since the object and purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the case he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact, hence, will entail dismissal of the suit or petition. Particulars, on the other hand, are the details of the case which is in the nature of evidence a party would be leading at the time of trial."


IN a case of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RADHA KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. AIR 1983 SC 684 it was observed on G-TREE as follows “The principles governing such cases are: (i) Genealogies admitted or proved to be old and relied on in previous cases are doubtless relevant and in some cases may even be conclusive of the facts proved, but there are several considerations which must be kept in mind viz.: (a) Source of the genealogy and its dependability. (b) Admissibility of the genealogy under the Evidence Act. (c) A proper use in decisions or judgments on which reliance is placed. (d) Age of genealogies. (e) Litigations where such genealogies have been accepted or rejected. (2) On the question of admissibility the following tests must be adopted: (a) The genealogies of the families concerned must fall within the four- corners of s. 32(5) or s. 13 of the Evidence Act. (b) They must not be hit by the doctrine of post litem motam. (c) The genealogies or the claims cannot be proved by recitals, depositions or facts narrated in the judgment which have been held by a long course of decisions to be inadmissible. (d) Where genealogy is proved by oral evidence, the said evidence must clearly show special means of knowledge disclosing the exact source, time and the circumstances under which the knowledge is acquired, and this must be clearly and conclusively proved.”

 IN a case of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RADHA KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. AIR 1983 SC 684 it is observed as follows: “In considering the oral evidence regarding a pedigree a purely mathematical approach cannot be made because where a long line of descent has to be proved spreading over a century, it is' obvious that the witnesses who are examined to depose to the genealogy would have to depend on their special means of knowledge which may have come to them through their ancestors but, at the same time, there is great risk and a serious danger involved in relying solely on the evidence of witness given from pure memory because the witness who are interested normally have a tendency to draw more from their imagination or turn and twist the facts which they may have heard from their ancestors in order to help the parties for whom they are deposing. The court, must therefore safeguard that the evidence of such witness may not be accepted as it is based purely on imagination or an imaginary or illusory source of information rather than special means of knowledge as required by law. The oral testimony or the witness on this matter is bound to be hearsay and their evidence is admissible as an exception to the general rule where hearsay evidence is not admissible. In the appreciation of evidence of such witnesses, the principles to be borne in mind are: (1) The relationship or the connection however close it may be, which the witness bears to the persons whose pedigree is sought to be deposed by him. (2) The nature and character of the special means of knowledge through which the witness has come to know about the pedigree. (3) The interested nature of the witness concerned. (4) The precaution which must be taken to rule out any false statement made by the witness post litem motam or one which is derived not by means of special knowledge but purely from his imagination, and (5) The evidence of the witness must be substantially corroborated as far as time and memory admit.”

 IN a case of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RADHA KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. AIR 1983 SC 684 it was observed as follows: “Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value, quite another: a document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and weight or its probative value may be nil. It is also well settled that statements or declarations before persons of competent knowledge made ante litem motam are receivable to prove ancient rights of a public or general nature. The admissibility of such declarations is, however, considerably weakened if it pertains not to public rights but to purely private rights. It is equally well settled that declarations or statements made post litem motam would not be admissible because in cases or proceedings taken or declarations made ante litem motam, the element of bias and concoction is eliminated. Before, however, the statements of the nature mentioned above can be admissible as being ante litem motam they must not only be before the actual existence of any controversy, but should be made even before the commencement of legal proceedings. This position however cannot hold good of statements made post litem motam which would be clearly inadmissible in evidence. The reason for this rule seems to be that after a dispute has begun or a legal proceeding is about to commence, the possibility of bias, concoction or putting up false pleas cannot be ruled out.”