Lawwatch : Legal Resources for Advocates

Marking of a Document does not Prove its Contents: Supreme Court

By K Rajasekharan 8 August 2026Indian Evidence ActNo Comments

Mere marking or exhibiting of a document in a court does not does not establish the legal validity or dispense with formal proof of its content, reaffirmed the Supreme Court in Sangeetha & Ors. v. Tmt. P. Ponni [2026 INSC 813].

Court Fee Is Payable on the Principal Relief, Not the Ancillary Relief: Kerala High Court

By K Rajasekharan 7 August 2026Civil Cases & ProceeduresNo Comments

In Madathil Pakruti v. T.P. Kunjanandan [2025: KER:80993], the Kerala High Court has held that where a suit challenges multiple documents relating to the same property, a declaratory relief against a subsequent document — whose fate depends entirely on the outcome of the challenge to an earlier document — is merely ancillary. The Court fee in such case need be computed only on the principal relief, in terms of the proviso to Section 6(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.

Husband’s Right in the Intestate Property of the Deceased Hindu Wife

By K Rajasekharan 3 August 2026Property & SuccessionNo Comments

When a married Hindu woman passes away intestate, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 treats the inheritance of her estate differentially, based on how she acquired the property.

A Grama Panchayat is Entitled to Cut or Remove a Tree or its Branch only When it Poses an Imminent Danger.

By K Rajasekharan 3 August 2026Local Government LawsNo Comments

The High Court of Kerala, in Gopinath R v. Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions ([2026: KER: 44156]), observed that Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, empowers a Grama Panchayat to cut or remove any tree, branch, portion, or fruit if it is likely to fall and endanger any person, structure, or cultivation.

Drafting Argument Notes or Written Submissions for Final Hearing: A Guide

By K Rajasekharan 3 August 2026ArticlesNo Comments

Always keep written arguments simple, plain and effective. It is better not to write like an articulate lawyer. Rather it is always well paying if you try to make the note simple enough in such a way that a stranger could read and understand it. Use a style which is clear, concise and focused. Use language that is active, all-inclusive (covering every aspect), and visual (that provides a mental picture) in such a way it gives the readers a vivid picture of the things with colour, context and action.

Wife Cannot Be Denied Half Share in Joint Property by Claiming Husband Paid the Purchase Amount

By K Rajasekharan 2 August 2026Matrimonial and Maintenance CasesNo Comments

While allowing a wife's appeal challenging the Family Court's order declaring her husband as the absolute owner of the property purchased in their joint names, the Kerala High Court, in A v. B. and Another [2026:KER:54162], has held that the property in joint names cannot be claimed by the husband alone on the ground of paying the entire amount, unless there is evidence to show that the property was held on trust or that the property was fraudulently purchased in the name of one spouse.

A Defendant has Right to Receive Copies of the Plaint and Annexed Documents

By K Rajasekharan 2 August 2026Civil Cases & ProceeduresNo Comments

When a plaintiff files a civil suit, the defendant must get a copy of the plaint and all documents that the plaintiff has filed along with it, without which, a defendant cannot set up her defence.

Signature Mismatch in Cheque Bounce Cases Under the NI Act

By K Rajasekharan 1 August 2026Negotiable Instruments ActNo Comments

A cheque returned due to a "signature mismatch" can attract criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as held by the Supreme Court of India in M/s Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2012) 13 SCC 375].

Approbate and Reprobate: What the Legal Doctrine Means

By K Rajasekharan 29 July 2026ArticlesNo Comments

Approbate and reprobate is a legal doctrine which means one cannot accept and reject the same thing, blow hot and cold, or take two opposite stands. It is based on the Latin maxim quod approbo non reprobo ("that which I approve, I cannot disapprove"). It stops a person from taking advantage of a deal or court order and then later claiming it is invalid to get a different advantage.