List of Current Affairs

Source: Orissa High Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra of the Orissa High Court, in L v. State of Orissa (2026), held that a conviction under Section 417 of IPC (Section 318(2) of BNS) for cheating cannot be sustained on a promise of marriage unless the prosecution establishes that the promise was false and dishonestly made at its inception, with no intention on the part of the accused to honour it. 

• The Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 417 IPC, holding that the mere subsequent failure to fulfil a promise of marriage does not by itself amount to cheating. 

What was the Background of L v. State of Orissa (2026) Case? 

• The appellant and the prosecutrix were in a relationship, and the appellant allegedly established sexual intercourse with her on the assurance of marriage. 
• When villagers learnt of the relationship, the appellant left the village. Subsequently, the prosecutrix's parents arranged her marriage with another person. 
• On the scheduled date of the marriage, the appellant allegedly contacted the groom's family and disclosed his relationship with the prosecutrix, following which the groom's family called off the wedding. 
• When the prosecutrix asked the appellant to marry her, he refused. An FIR was thereafter registered against him under Section 376 (rape) and Section 417 (cheating) of the IPC. 
• The Trial Court held that the appellant and the prosecutrix were in love and that the prosecutrix had consented to the sexual relationship with knowledge of its consequences; it accordingly acquitted him under Section 376 IPC. However, it convicted him under Section 417 IPC for cheating, on the ground that he had refused to marry her despite having assured her of marriage. 
• The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 417 IPC before the Orissa High Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Ingredients of Cheating Based on a Promise to Marry: The Court held that a mere breach of promise, without proof that the promise was false and dishonestly made at inception, does not by itself constitute cheating. The prosecution must establish that the promise was false at its very inception and that the accused had no intention of honouring it at the time it was made. 
• On Reliance on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2019): The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling that consent vitiated by a misconception of fact arising from a promise to marry can be established only where the promise was false, given in bad faith, and made without any intention of being kept at the time it was made. It also noted that such a false promise must have a direct and immediate nexus with the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act. This position was reiterated by the Gauhati High Court in Guluk Kathar v. State of Assam (2025). 
• On the Trial Court's Own Findings: The Court observed that the Trial Court, while acquitting the appellant under Section 376 IPC, had itself found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that the prosecution had failed to prove that her consent was induced by the assurance of marriage. It held that this finding was directly relevant to the charge under Section 417 IPC as well. 
• On the Appellant's Conduct: The Court held that there was no convincing evidence that the appellant had made a false promise of marriage with no intention of honouring it at the inception of the relationship. It further noted that the appellant's act of contacting the groom's family was relevant in showing his continuing intention to marry the prosecutrix. 
• On Selective Reliance on Evidence: The Court held that although rape and cheating are offences with distinct ingredients, the same body of evidence could not be selectively relied upon to acquit the accused of rape on the ground that the relationship was consensual, while simultaneously convicting him for cheating merely because the relationship subsequently failed, without independently establishing dishonest intention at inception. 
• Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under Section 417 IPC was set aside. 

What is Cheating under BNS? 

Section 318 BNS (Cheating): 

• Sub-section (1) – Definition: Cheating occurs when a person fraudulently or dishonestly deceives another, inducing them to deliver property, consent to retention of property, or do/omit an act likely to cause harm to body, mind, reputation, or property. Dishonest concealment of facts amounts to deception. 
• Sub-section (2) – General Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both. 
• Sub-section (3) – Breach of Trust: Enhanced punishment where the offender was under a legal duty or contractual obligation to protect the victim's interests — imprisonment up to 5 years, or fine, or both. 
• Sub-section (4) – Property-Related Cheating: Where cheating induces delivery of property, or making/altering/destroying valuable security or documents — imprisonment up to 7 years, and fine. 

IPC–BNS Comparative Table: 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, in Raziya Begum & Ors. v. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid & Ors. (2026), held that actual payment of the entire sale consideration at the time of execution is not necessary for completion of a sale, and that non-payment of the remaining consideration does not invalidate a registered sale deed.  

• The Court held that the remedy available to the transferor against non-payment of the balance consideration is a suit for recovery of money, and not cancellation of the sale deed. 
• The Court accordingly set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench, passed in second appeal, which had interfered with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court upholding the sale deed. 

What was the Background of Raziya Begum & Ors. v. Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The original plaintiffs executed two sale deeds in favour of the original defendant, each fixing the total sale consideration at Rs. 7,000. 
• At the time of execution, Rs. 2,500 was paid towards each property, while the defendant retained Rs. 4,500 for each property to clear the plaintiffs' outstanding dues owed to various financial institutions and government departments. 
• The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a declaration that the sale deeds were void and inoperative, cancellation of the deeds, a declaration of ownership, and a permanent injunction against the defendant. 
• The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and this finding was affirmed by the First Appellate Court. 
• Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred a second appeal before the Bombay High Court, which reversed the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 
• The defendants thereafter appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On Passing of Title on Registration: The Court held that once a sale deed is registered, title passes to the transferee even upon part payment of the sale price, and the non-payment of the remaining part of the sale price does not invalidate the sale deed. 
• On the Appropriate Remedy for Non-Payment: The Court held that the remedy available against non-payment of the balance sale consideration is to file a suit for recovery of the balance consideration, and not to seek cancellation of the sale deed. 
• On Execution with Knowledge of Part Consideration: The Court observed that a sale deed executed with full knowledge that only part consideration had been paid cannot be treated as void or inoperative merely because the balance consideration, payment of which was promised and incorporated in the deed, remained unpaid. 
• On the Plaintiffs' Right: The Court held that the plaintiffs' right was confined to filing a suit for recovery of the balance sale consideration, and did not extend to seeking a declaration that the sale deeds were null and void. 
• On Relief to the Defendants: The Court clarified that the appellants-defendants would be liable to pay the balance sale consideration along with interest, and could seek possession of the property if they so desired. 
• On Possession: The Court declined to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had not disturbed the possession of the respondent-plaintiffs. 

What is Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? 

Definition: 

• Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid, promised, or part-paid and part-promised. 

Mode of Transfer: 

• Tangible immovable property valued Rs. 100 and above, or any reversion/intangible thing: transferable only by registered instrument. 
• Tangible immovable property valued below Rs. 100: transferable either by registered instrument or by delivery of possession. 
• Delivery occurs when the seller places the buyer (or a person directed by the buyer) in possession of the property. 

Contract for Sale: 

• An agreement that a sale will take place on terms settled between the parties. 
• Does not, by itself, create any interest in or charge on the property. 

Sale vs. Contract for Sale: 

Essentials of a Valid Sale: 

• Parties: At least two — transferor/seller/vendor and transferee/buyer/vendee. 
• Competency: Seller must hold ownership and legal title, and must not be a minor, of unsound mind, or statutorily disqualified; buyer must be legally competent and not disqualified from purchasing immovable property. 
• Subject Matter: Immovable property, tangible (e.g., land, house, trees, things attached to earth) or intangible (e.g., right of ferry, mortgage, fishery). 
• Price/Consideration: Must be ascertained at the time of contract; payable at, before, or after sale, and in lump sum or instalments. 
• Conveyance: Effected either by delivery of possession or registration of the sale deed.