Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - 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

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw