Revisiting Supreme Court Justice MM Shantangoudar's notable works

Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar was born on May 5, 1958 in Haveri District of Karnataka, he obtained his BA & LLB Degree from University Law College, Karnataka University, Dharwad.

He was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court on February 17, 2017.

Enrolled as an Advocate on 05.09.1980, Justice MM Shantanangoudar practiced for an year at Dharwad in the Chambers of Sri I.G. Hiregoudar, Advocate before shifting practice to Bengaluru. Later, he joined the Chambers of Sri Shivaraj V. Patil, Advocate (as he then was), who later adorned the Supreme Court of India.

In the year 1984, Justice MM Shantanangoudar started his independent practice & thereafter practiced mainly in Civil, Criminal and Constitutional matters.

He served as Vice-Chairman of Karnataka State Bar Council from 1991 to 1993 and as Chairman of Karnataka State Bar Council during 1995 and 1996 & later as State Public Prosecutor of Karnataka State from 1999 to 2002.

Justice MM Shantanangoudar was appointed as an Additional Judge of the Karnataka High Court on 12.05.2003 and as Permanent Judge on 24.09.2004. He was also the President of Bangalore Mediation Centre and Karnataka Judicial Academy.

On transfer, he was sworn-in as Judge, High Court of Kerala & assumed charge as Acting Chief Justice on 01.08.2016. He also sworn in as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala on 22.09.2016.

Notable Judgements

1. Poona Ram V. Moti Ram (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4527 OF 2009)

Bench: Justice SA Bobde, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar & Justice Indira Banerjee

Observation: A person who asserts possessory title over a particular property will have to show that he is under settled or established possession of the said property. But merely stray or intermittent acts of trespass do not give such a right against the true owner. Settled possession means such possession over the property which has existed for a sufficiently long period of time, and has been acquiesced to by the true owner. A casual act of possession does not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force. Settled possession must be (i) effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. There cannot be a straitjacket formula to determine settled possession. Occupation of a property by a person as an agent or a servant acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual legal possession. The possession should contain an element of animus possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser is to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

2. Subhechha Welfare Society v. M/s. Earth Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9959-9960 Of 2017)

Bench: Justice R Subhash Reddy & Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Observations: Recognised consumer associations can file complaints on behalf of a single consumer, but cannot file complaints on behalf of several consumers in one complaint, is erroneous and there is no legal basis for that. From a reading of Section 12(1)(b) of the Act read with Explanation to Section 12 it is clear that voluntary registered association can file a complaint on behalf of its members to espouse their grievances. There is nothing in the aforesaid provision of the Act which would restrict its application to the complaint pertaining to an individual complainant. If a recognised consumer association is made to file multiple complaints in respect of several consumers having a similar cause of action, that would defeat the very purpose of registration of a society or association and it would result only in multiplicity of proceedings without serving any useful purpose.

3. Indore Development Authority Versus Shailendra (Dead) Through Lrs.& Ors. (Civil Appeal No.20982 Of 2017)

Observations: The acquisition proceedings do not lapse if the amount is deposited in the Treasury and such fact is made known to the claimants by the competent authority as required in law. Only interest is attracted, in case if the deposit is not made in Court.

4. Smt. Rekha Sengar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 380 Of 2021)

Observation: The unrelenting continuation of this immoral practice, the globally shared understanding that it constitutes a form of violence against women, and its potential to damage the very fabric of gender equality and dignity that forms the bedrock of our Constitution are all factors that categorically establish pre­natal sex­determination as a grave offence with serious consequences for the society as a whole.

5. Shankar Sakharam Kenjale (Died) Through Lrs V Narayan Krishna Gade And Another (Civil Appeal No. 4594 Of 2010)

Observation: It is well­ settled that the right of redemption under a mortgage deed can come to an end or be extinguished only by a process known to law, i.e., either by way of a contract between the parties to such effect, by a merger, or by a statutory provision that debars the mortgagor from redeeming the mortgage. In other words, a mortgagee who has entered into possession of the mortgaged property will have to give up such possession when a suit for redemption is filed, unless he is able to establish that the right of redemption has come to an end as per law. This emanates from the legal principle applicable to all mortgages – “Once a mortgage, always a mortgage”.

6. Accused X vs The State Of Maharashtra (Review Petition (Criminal) No. 301 Of 2008 in (Criminal Appeal No. 680 Of 2007)

Bench: Justice N V Ramana, Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar & Justice Indira Banerjee

Observations: All human beings possess the capacities inherent in their nature even though, because of infancy, disability, or senility, they may not yet, not now, or no longer have the ability to exercise them. When such disability occurs, a person may not be in a position to understand the implications of his actions and the consequence it entails. In this situation, the execution of such a person would lower the majesty of law.

Mental health assessment of the convict would need to be conducted by a multi­disciplinary team of qualified professionals (experienced medical practitioners, criminologists etc), including a professional with expertise in the accused’s particular mental illness, before a decision on the death penalty could be taken.