Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Property Matters

Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 372 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHENDRA NATH SORAL AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAVINDRA NATH SORAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and…

Joint Family Property Matrimonial Property Matters

Suit for Partition – The Court found that ‘C’ remarriage extinguished her rights to her first husband’s property, and she could not pass on any title to the plaintiff – The Court applied the Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856, and relevant case law to determine the impact of Chiruthey’s remarriage on her property rights – The Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff could not inherit the property through ‘C’, as her rights were nullified upon remarriage, and the deeds did not confer valid title.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 287 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIZHAKKE VATTAKANDIYIL MADHAVAN (DEAD) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. THIYYURKUNNATH MEETHAL JANAKI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose…

Property Matters

“Family Feud Over Property: Kamla Nagar Goes to One Side, Malcha Marg to the Other” – The court analyzed the Registration Act’s requirements for documenting transfers of property rights and concluded that the lack of registration indicated no settlement existed – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment regarding the Kamla Nagar property, restoring the Trial Court’s decision and confirming the appellants’ sole ownership – The decision regarding the Malcha Marg property was upheld, leaving it exclusively to the respondents.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JUGAL KISHORE KHANNA(D) THR LRS AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUDHIR KHANNA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,…

Property Matters

Property Dispute – The case involves disputes over property ownership after the original owner, ‘S’, passed away in 1947 – The Court found no foundation for the plea of adverse possession in the plaintiff’s claim, as the necessary facts were not adequately pleaded or proved – The appeals were dismissed, with the Court upholding the original decrees and granting the appellant time until March 31, 2025, to vacate the property, subject to certain conditions.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M. RADHESHYAMLAL — Appellant Vs. V SANDHYA AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. ) Civil…

Property Matters

Land Dispute – Appeal Against High Court Order – The appellant challenges the High Court’s decision to quash a resolution for land allocation for a new primary school – The dispute involves land needed for a highway project, leading to the demolition and proposed relocation of a school – Respondents filed multiple writ petitions, with the latest being dismissed due to concealment of previous petitions and lack of notice to parties – The Supreme Court finds the High Court’s order arbitrary and sets it aside, allowing the appeal and the school’s construction on the disputed land.

Mar 12, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNEETA DEVI — Appellant Vs. AVINASH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). of…

Property Matters

Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 – Section 8(2) – Right to pre-emption – It has been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8(2) of the 1913 Act, which enables the State Government to declare by notification either no right of pre-emption or only limited right will exist in any local area or with respect to any land or property or class of land or property – it is abundantly clear that the land and the immovable property are two different terms. The immovable property is more than the land on which certain construction has been made. Guidance can also be taken from the definition of immovable property, as provided in Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which includes land, means something more than the land.

Feb 18, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGMOHAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. BADRI NATH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Property Matters

Property Dispute – Dispute over illegal demolition – Settlement discussions ensued between the complainants and accused, resulting in compensation to the tenants – The tenants withdrew their complaint, seeking quashing of proceedings – The Supreme Court allowed the petitions, ordering police personnel to pay compensation to the tenants, and quashing the proceedings upon depositing the specified amounts in a fund

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHATRUGHNA ATMARAM PATIL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. VINOD DODHU CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma,…

Adverse Possession Property Matters

Property Law – Whether the appellant, who purchased a plot of land through a registered sale deed in 1966, is entitled to possession of the land or whether the respondents, who claim to have been in possession since 1944, have acquired title through adverse possession – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restored the decree of the First Appellate Court in favor of the plaintiff appellant – The Court held that the plaintiff appellant was the rightful owner of the land and that the defendant respondents’ possession was not adverse.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIJ NARAYAN SHUKLA (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. SUDESH KUMAR ALIAS SURESH KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw