Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Key Highlights

• 1. Indian Law will accept a ‘foreign decree’ as valid, if only-
  • (a) it has been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction;
  • (b) it has been given on the merits of the case;
  • (c) it is founded on correct view of law;
  • (d) the proceedings are not opposed to natural justice;
  • (e) it is not obtained by fraud; and
  • (f) it sustains a claim founded not on a breach of any law in force in India.
• 2. A foreign decree is valid and a foreign court is competent if-
  • (i) the matrimonial
    • (a) action is filed in the forum where the respondent resides and
    • (b) the relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married;
  • or
  • (ii) both parties
    • (a) voluntarily and unconditionally subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of that court and
    • (b) contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married;
  • or
  • (iii) the respondent consents to the grant of the relief. 
• 3. A valid foreign decree need not be re-validated or revived in India.
• 4. If Consented Foreign Decree – Non-compliance of provisions of matrimonial law, immaterial.

Introduction

Validity of a Foreign Divorce Decree depends upon the following eventualities:

Whether the Divorce Decree is passed on a-

• Consented (Mutual or otherwise) proceedings,
• Contested proceedings or
• Ex-parte proceedings.

The validity of a Foreign Divorce Decree may also depend upon the following status of the parties:

• Indian Citizens
• Foreign Citizens who were formerly Indian citizens.
• Persons who have Dual Citizenship.

The validity may still further depend upon-

• the matrimonial law under which the parties were married and
• the place where the marriage took place; that is, whether in India (according to the law in force in India).

Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code

Section 13 of the CPC enumerates the conditions – ‘when foreign judgment not conclusive’. Section 13 reads as under:

• “13. When foreign judgment not conclusive —A foreign judgment shall be conclusive as to any matter thereby directly adjudicated upon between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title except—
  • (a) where it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction;
  • (b) where it has not been given on the merits of the case;
  • (c) where it appears on the fact of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or a refusal to recognise the law of India in cases in which such law is applicable;
  • (d) where the proceedings in which the judgment was obtained are opposed to natural justice;
  • (e) where it has been obtained by fraud;
  • (f) where it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in India.”

Section 14 of the Civil Procedure Code

Section 14 states that when the Indian Courts would consider the Foreign Judgment to be conclusive. Section 14 reads as under:

• 14. Presumption as to foreign judgments.– The Court shall presume, upon the production of any document purporting to be a certified copy of a foreign judgment, that such judgment was pronounced by a Court to competent jurisdiction, unless the contrary appears on the record; but such presumption may be displaced by proving want of jurisdiction.

Execution of a Foreign Decree

Section 44-A provides for execution of a foreign divorce decree. It reads as under:

• 44A. Execution of Decrees Passed by Courts in Reciprocating Territory–
• (1) Where a certified copy of a decree of any of the superior Courts of  any reciprocating territory has been filed in a District Court, the decree may be executed in India as if it had been passed by the District Court.
• (2) Together with the certified copy of the decree shall be filed a certificate from such superior Court stating the extent, if any, to which the decree has been satisfied or adjusted and such certificate shall, for the purposes of proceedings under this section, be conclusive proof of the extent of such satisfaction or adjustment.
• (3) The provisions of section 47 shall as from the filing of the certified copy of the decree apply to the proceedings of a District Court executing a decree under this section, and the District Court shall refuse execution of any such decree, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that the decree falls within any of the exceptions specified in clauses (a) to (f) of section 13.
• Explanation 1- “Reciprocating territory” means any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section; and superior Courts, with reference to any such territory, means such Courts as may be specified in the said notification.
• Explanation 2- “Decree” with reference to a superior Court means any decree or judgment of such Court under which a sum of money is payable, not being a sum payable in respect of taxes or other charges of a like nature or in respect of a fine or other penalty, but shall in no case include an arbitration award, even if such an award is enforceable as a decree or judgment.

Section 41 and 44 of the Indian Evidence Act

Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a final judgment of a competent court in the exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction is conclusive proof. But the judgment has to be of a ‘competent Court’, that is, a court having jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Section 44 of the Evidence Act allows to show that the judgment which is relevant under section 41 “was delivered by a court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion“.

In Satya v. Teja Singh, AIR 1975 SC 105, (1975) 1 SCC 120, after referring the above provisions, it was observed that it was wrong to think that judgments in rem are inviolable; and that fraud, in any case bearing on jurisdictional facts, vitiates all judicial acts whether in rem or in personam. In Satya v. Teja Singh, the foreign decree was declared invalid by the Supreme Court of India, for the husband-respondent had instituted the proceeding on a false representation that he was a bona fide resident of that State.

‘Competent Jurisdiction’ in Sec. 13 CPC Contemplates that in ‘international sense‘

In R. Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Majid (AIR 1963 SC 1) our Apex Court held as under:

• “A judgment of a foreign court to be conclusive between the parties must be a judgment pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction and competence contemplated by section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in an international sense and not merely by the law of foreign State in which the Court delivering judgment functions”.

Basic Rule – Divorce Must be as per Law under which One Married – Three Exceptions

The basic rule as to acceptance of foreign matrimonial-judgment is that the relief must have been granted in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. Sec. 13 CPC stipulates that acceptance of a foreign judgment is depended upon the eventuality – whether it is pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. What is ‘court of competent jurisdiction‘ is not made clear in the CPC.

The Supreme Court, in Y. Narasimharao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi,  1991- 3 SCC 451, “interpreted” ‘court of competent jurisdiction‘, and carved out, for the first time, three exceptions to the strict general law that the matrimonial reliefs are granted only on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties married.

In Y. Narasimharao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi, the husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in the Circuit of Missouri, USA. The wife sent her reply from India under protest. The Circuit Court passed a decree for dissolution of marriage in the absence of the wife. Our Apex Court found the foreign judgment unacceptable for the following reasons:

• The foreign decree was without jurisdiction according to the (Hindu Marriage) Act as neither the marriage was celebrated nor the parties last resided together nor the respondent resided within the jurisdiction of that Court.
• The decree was passed on a ground which was not available under the Act.
• The falsely stated that he was the resident of the Missouri State, and was not domiciled in that State.
• He had made a false averment that the wife had refused to continue to stay with him in the State of Missouri where she had never been.

It is further held in Y. Narasimharao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi as under:

• “Clause (a) of Section 13 states that a foreign judgment shall not be recognised if it has not been pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction. We are of the view that this clause should be interpreted to mean that only that court will be a court of competent jurisdiction which the Act or the law under which the parties are married recognises as a court of competent jurisdiction to entertain the matrimonial dispute. Any other court should be held to be a court without jurisdiction unless both parties voluntarily and unconditionally subject themselves to the jurisdiction of that court.”
• ” …  From the aforesaid discussion the following rule can be deduced for recognising foreign matrimonial judgment in this country. The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows:
  • (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married;
  • (ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married;
  • (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of the relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties.

In the light of S. 13 of the CPC, read with the observations of Y. Narasimharao v. Y. Venkatalexmi, 1991-3 SCC 451, even when a foreign divorce decree is granted by a forum, jurisdiction of which is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law, it is accepted as valid in India, if the decree is passed on any one of the circumstances that invite the exemption (ii) or (iii).

Consented Decree – Non-compliance of Provisions of Matrimonial Law, Immaterial

In Augustine Kalathil Mathew v. The Marriage Officer, 2016-4 Ker LT 415, it is held by the Kerala High Court that when the parties to a marriage have voluntarily and effectively submitted to the jurisdiction of the UAE Personal Status Court and consented to grant divorce to each other, although the jurisdiction of the said forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law applicable to them, the divorce certification granted by the UAE Personal Status Court has to be recognised by the courts in India. (It is followed by the Kerala High Court in Rince Marin Ninan v. Registrar, Kerala Registration Of Marriage, 2022)

See Blog: Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile

Section 1 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 1 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 reads as under:

• “1. Short title and extent—(1) This Act may be called the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and applies also to Hindus domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who are outside the said territories.”

From the above, it is clear that for the Hindus residing or settled abroad are continued to be governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, the divorce granted by a foreign Court will not be binding on them so far as their rights and liabilities in India are concerned. In that strict view, if only the divorce is granted to a Hindu by a foreign court applying the Hindu law as the matrimonial law (under which the parties are married), the divorce of that court will be accepted in India.

Bombay HC held Dubai Court not Competent, for wife was not resident of Dubai

In Shilpa Sachdev v. Shri. Anand Sachdev, 2017-5 AIR Bom R 607, RCR (Civil) 2017-4 258, Hindu LR 2017-3 178, All MR 2018-5 628, the Bombay High Court, applying the principles laid down in Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi,  1991- 3 SCC 451, held that the Dubai Court was not a competent foreign Court-

• pleadings do not indicate that the respondent-husband had invoked the jurisdiction of Dubai Court claiming that the petitioner wife is a resident of or domicile of Dubai.
• pleadings do not state that the petitioner-wife had abandoned her domicile of birth by making Dubai her permanent abode.
• no averments that the petitioner-wife being a permanent resident of Dubai, the Dubai Court was competent to entertain the petition for divorce.
• the judgment of Dubai Court also does not state that the wife was domicile of Dubai or that she had an intention to continue her stay in Dubai.
• on the contrary, the records reveal that the wife had returned to India on 21st June, 2008 and since then she is permanently domiciled in India.
• there are no averments in the Law Suit filed before the Dubai Court that the respondent-husband had made Dubai as his permanent abode.
• both the spouses are Indian citizens and in the absence of the averments as well as material to endorse the claim of being domicile of Dubai, the presumption under section14 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands dislodged.

It was further held that the Dubai court had not considered the real controversy between the parties and hence the said Dubai court judgment cannot be said to be a judgment on merits of the case. The court pointed out the following:

• Hindu Marriage Act does not recognise a ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
• Dubai Court indicates that the divorce was granted on the ground of desertion.
• Under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu marriage Act, marriage can be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the spouse has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.
• Under the Hindu Marriage Act, factum of separation and animus to desert or intention to bring cohabitation to end are essential requisites of desertion. It is evident that the Dubai Court has not considered the aspect of animus deserendi and has granted divorce solely on the ground that the parties were living separately for a period of more than two years.
• In International Woolen Mills v. Standard Wool, AIR 2001 SC 2134; (2001) 5 SCC 265,  our Apex Court has held that the decision of a Court given ex-parte on the basis of the plaintiff’s plea and the documents, without going into the controversy between the parties, would not be a judgment on the merits of the case.
• The Apex Court, in Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu, 1984-3 SCC 698, stressed the need to protect the wife against the burden of litigating in inconvenient forum. Hence, it was necessary to ensure that the petitioner was in a position to remain present before the court at Dubai and contest the proceedings effectively. The judgment of the Dubai Court did not indicate that the respondent herein had ensured effective contest by making all necessary provisions for the petitioner to defend the petition, including the cost of travel, residence, and litigation.

In Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini, AIR 2013 SC 2678: 2013-7 SCC 426, referring Section 1(2) Hindu Marriage Act it has been laid down-

• “14. Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid, when we consider Section 1(2) of the Act, it is evident that the Act extends to the Hindus of whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and also applies to Hindus domiciled in India who are outside the said territory. In short, the Act, in our opinion, will apply to Hindus domiciled in India even if they reside outside India. If the requirement of domicile in India is omitted altogether, the Act shall have no nexus with India which shall render the Act vulnerable on the ground that extra-territorial operation has no nexus with India. In our opinion, this extra-territorial operation of law is saved not because of nexus with Hindus but Hindus domiciled in India.
• 19. Section 2(1) provides for the application of the Act. The same reads as follows :-
  • 2. Application of Act.- (1) This Act applies –
  • to any person who is a Hindu by religion in any of its forms or developments, including a Virashaiva, a Lingayat or a follower of the Brahmo, Prarthana or Arya Samaj,
  • to any person who is a Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh by religion, and
  • to any other person domiciled in the territories to which this Act extends who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion, unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed.”
• 20. This section contemplates application of the Act to Hindu by religion in any of its forms or Hindu within the extended meaning i.e. Buddhist, Jaina or Sikh and, in fact, applies to all such persons domiciled in the country who are not Muslims, Christians, Parsi or Jew, unless it is proved that such persons are not governed by the Act under any custom or usage. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Section 2 will apply to Hindus when the Act extends to that area in terms of Section 1 of the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Act will apply to Hindu outside the territory of India only if such a Hindu is domiciled in the territory of India.”
• 28. … For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that both the husband and wife are domicile of India and, hence, shall be covered by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As on fact, we have found that both the husband and wife are domicile of India, and the Act will apply to them, other contentions raised on behalf of the parties, are rendered academic and we refrain ourselves to answer those.
• 29. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs.
• 30. In view of our decision in Civil Appeal No. 4629 of 2005 (Sondur Gopal v. Sondur Rajini) holding that the petition filed by the appellant for judicial separation and custody of the children is maintainable, we are of the opinion that the writ petition filed by the respondent for somewhat similar relief is rendered infructuous. On this ground alone, we allow this appeal and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent.”
• Read Blog: Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?

Read in this Cluster  (Click on the topic):

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

• Civil Rights and Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata
• Order II, Rule 2 CPC – Not to Vex Defendants Twice
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• PLEADINGS IN ELECTION MATTERS
• Law on Summons to Defendants and Witnesses
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Sec. 91 CPC and Suits Against Wrongful Acts
• Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Mandatory Injunction – Law and Principles
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Interrogatories: When Court Allows, When Rejects?
• Decree in OI R8 CPC-Suit & Eo-Nomine Parties
• Pecuniary & Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Doctrine of Substantial Representation in a Suit by or against an Association
• Who are Necessary Parties, Proper Parties and Pro Forma Parties in Suits
• What is Partnership, in Law? How to Sue a Firm?
• ‘Legal Representatives’, Not ‘Legal Heirs’ to be Impleaded on Death of Plaintiff/Defendant
• Powers and Duties of Commissioners to Make Local Investigations, Under CPC

Power of attorney

• No Adjudication If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Notary Attested Power-of-Attorney Sufficient for Registration
• Permission when a Power of Attorney Holder Files Suit

Title, ownership and Possession

• Title and Ownership in Indian Law
• Does ‘Abandonment’ Give rise to a Recognised Right in Indian Law?
• POSSESSION is a Substantive Right in Indian Law
• Adverse Possession: An Evolving Concept
• Adverse Possession: Burden to Plead Sabotaged
• When ‘Possession Follows Title’; ‘Title Follows Possession’?
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• Preemption is a Very Weak Right; For, Property Right is a Constitutional & Human Right
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• INJUNCTION is a ‘Possessory Remedy’ in Indian Law
• Kesar Bai v. Genda Lal – Does Something Remain Untold?

Principles and Procedure

• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Declaration and Injunction
• Pleadings Should be Specific; Why?
• Does Alternate Remedy Bar Civil Suits and Writ Petitions?
• Void, Voidable, Ab Initio Void, and Sham Transactions
• Can Courts Award Interest on Equitable Grounds?
• Natural Justice – Not an Unruly Horse
• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’
• Can a Party to Suit Examine Opposite Party, as of Right?
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Admission, Relevancy and Proof
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

• Does ‘Pandaravaka Pattom’ in Kerala Denote Full-Ownership?
• Transfer of Property with Conditions & Contingent Interests
• Vested Remainder and Contingent Remainder
• Vested interest and Contingent Interest
• Ultimate Ownership of All Property Vests in State; It is an Incident of Sovereignty.
• Land Acquired Cannot be Returned – Even if it is Not Used for the Purpose Acquired
• ‘Mutation’ by Revenue Authorities & Survey will not Confer ‘Title’
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Relevant provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act in a Nutshell
• Land Tenures, and History of Land Derivation, in Kerala
• Government is the OWNER of (Leasehold) Plantation Lands in Kerala.
• Law on SUCCESSION CERTIFICATE and LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE

Evidence Act – General

• Expert Evidence and Appreciation of Evidence
• How to Contradict a Witness under Sec. 145, Evidence Act
• Rules on Burden of proof and Adverse Inference
• Best Evidence Rule in Indian Law
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Significance of Scientific Evidence in Judicial Process
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• Sec. 65B
• Sections 65A & 65B, Evidence Act and Arjun Panditrao: in Nutshell
• Sec. 65B, Evidence Act: Arjun Paditrao Criticised.
• Sec. 65B Evidence Act Simplified
• ‘STATEMENTS’ alone can be proved by ‘CERTIFICATE’ u/s. 65B
• Sec. 65B,  Evidence Act: Certificate for Computer Output
• Certificate is Required Only for ‘Computer Output’; Not for ‘Electronic Records’: Arjun Panditrao Explored.
• Law on Documents
• Admission of Documents in Evidence on ‘Admission’
• Time Limit for Registration of Documents
• Registration of Documents Executed out of India
• Are RTI Documents Admissible in Evidence as a ‘Public Documents’?
• Oral Evidence on Contents of Document, Irrelevant
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Stand Proved?
• Proof of Documents & Objections To Admissibility – How & When?
• Notary-Attested Documents: Presumption, Rebuttable
• Presumptions on Registered Documents & Collateral Purpose
• Notice to Produce Documents in Civil Cases
• Production of Documents: Order 11, Rule 14 & Rule 12
• Modes of Proof – Admission, Expert Evidence, Presumption etc.
• Presumptions on Documents and Truth of its Contents
• Proof and Truth of Documents
• Secondary Evidence of Documents & Objections to Admissibility – How & When?
• 30 Years Old Documents and Presumption of Truth of Contents, under Sec. 90 Evidence Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose
• Marking Documents Without Objection – Do Contents Proved
• Production, Admissibility & Proof Of Documents
• Substantive Documents, and Documents used for Refreshing Memory and Contradicting 
• Visual and Audio Evidence (Including Photographs, Cassettes, Tape-recordings, Films, CCTV Footage, CDs, e-mails, Chips, Hard-discs, Pen-drives)
• Relevancy, Admissibility and Proof of Documents
• No Adjudication Needed If Power of Attorney is Sufficiently Stamped
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance

Contract Act

• ‘Sound-mind’ and ‘Unsound-Mind’ in Indian Civil Laws
• Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Reasonable Compensation
• Who has to fix Damages in Tort and Contract?
• Can an Unregistered Sale Agreement be Used for Specific Performance

Easement

• What is Easement?
• Does Right of Easement Allow to ‘Enjoy’ After Making a Construction?
• What is “period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit”?
• Is the Basis of Every Easement, Theoretically, a Grant
• Extent of Easement (Width of Way) in Easement of Necessity, Quasi Easement and Implied Grant
• Can an Easement-Way be Altered by the Owner of the Land?
• Village Pathways and Right to Bury are not Easements.
• Custom & Customary Easements in Indian Law
• ‘Additional Burden Loses Lateral Support’ – Incorrect Proposition

Stamp Act

• Adjudication as to Proper Stamp under Stamp Act
• Unstamped & Unregistered Documents and Collateral Purpose

Will

• Interpretation of Inconsistent Clauses in a Will
• Will – Probate and Letters of Administration
• Executors of Will – Duties & their Removal

Divorce

• Validity of Foreign Divorce Decrees in India
• Is ‘Irretrievable Brake-down of Marriage’, a Valid Ground for Divorce in India?
• Foreign Divorce Judgment against Christians having Indian Domicile

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

• Judicial & Legislative Activism in India: Principles and Instances
• Can Legislature Overpower Court Decisions by an Enactment?
• Separation of Powers: Who Wins the Race – Legislature or Judiciary?
• Kesavananda Bharati Case: Never Ending Controversy
• Mullaperiyar Dam: Disputes and Adjudication of Legal Issues
• Article 370: Is There Little Chance for Supreme Court Interference
• Maratha Backward Community Reservation: SC Fixed Limit at 50%.
• Polygraphy, Narco Analysis and Brain Mapping Tests
• CAA Challenge: Divergent Views
• FERA, 1973 And Transfer of Immovable Property by a Foreigner
• Doctrine of ‘Right to be Forgotten’ in Indian Law
• Religious issues
• Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
• Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
• ‘Ban on Muslim Women to Enter Mosques, Unconstitutional’
• No Reservation to Muslim and Christian SCs/STs (Dalits) Why?
• Parsi Women – Excommunication for Marrying Outside
• Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
• Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
• SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case –Pragmatic Verdict

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

• General
  • General Features
  • Bye Laws Fundamental
  • Effect of Registration of Societies and Incorporation of Clubs
  • Societies and Branches
• Property & Trust
  • Vesting of Property in Societies and Clubs
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Juristic Personality
  • Juristic Personality of Societies and Clubs
  • Legal Personality of Trustees and Office Bearers
• Suits
  • Suits and Criminal Complaints By and Against a Company
  • Suits By or Against Societies, Clubs
  • Court’s Jurisdiction to Interfere in the Internal Affairs
  • How to Sue Societies, Clubs and Companies
• Amendment and Dissolution
  • Amendment of Bye laws of Societies and Clubs
  • Dissolution of Societies and Clubs
• Rights and Management
  • Rights & Liabilities of Members of Clubs and Societies
  • Individual Membership Rights in Societies & Clubs
  • Management – Powers of General Body and Governing Body
  • Expulsion of Members & Removal of Office-Bearers
  • Law on Meetings: An Overview
• Election
  • Election & Challenge in Societies and Clubs
  • Court Interference in Election Process
• State Actions
  • State-Interference in Affairs of Societies & Clubs

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions