Supreme Court of India Judgements

47295 Judgements hosted as on 02/08/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe @ Rs 99/- for 6 months, sclaw@sclaw.in, WA +91 9417245693.

Category: Property Matters

Property Matters

Appellants cannot be deprived of a plot allotted to her merely on the basis that she has not made any grievance in respect of possession of the plot allotted on the basis of technicities. If such allotment is found to be made, the appellant would be entitled to possession of the plot of 250 sq. yards. If it is found that the plot allotted to the appellant is not available, the Registrar or its delegate shall pass such necessary order to redress the grievance of the appellant after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons

Apr 17, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NISHA SINGLA — Appellant Vs. ADARSH COLONY COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and…

Property Matters

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Sections 22 and 24 – Entitlement of the land–we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay some more reasonable amount considering the fact that number of years have passed and even the price of the land has also increased, it would meet the ends of justice. At the same time, to direct the appellants to pay the present market value/market price would also be unreasonable. Therefore, taking into over all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay Rs. 3,66,30,000/- towards the cost of the land and Rs. 20,00,000/- towards the cost of construction of the existing building, it will meet the ends of justice–we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay some more reasonable amount considering the fact that number of years have passed and even the price of the land has also increased, it would meet the ends of justice. At the same time, to direct the appellants to pay the present market value/market price would also be unreasonable. Therefore, taking into over all facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if the appellants are directed to pay Rs. 3,66,30,000/- towards the cost of the land and Rs. 20,00,000/- towards the cost of construction of the existing building, it will meet the ends of justice

Apr 14, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURDEV SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Property Matters

Auction Sale—Lease hold property or Free hold property—While interpreting the Sale Deed, the auction notice has to be looked into to find out the nature of transaction—Sale Deed cannot be read divorced to the auction notice or contrary to auction notice Unearned Increase—When the auction was made on the market value of the property, then there was no question of claiming of unearned increase by the development authority   

Apr 10, 2019 sclaw

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 845 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 722 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph Civil Appeal No. 1533…

Property Matters

On the peculiar facts and circumstances, it may not be just to deny the plot to the appellant, inspite of having been allotted plots, both under the general category and under the Government employees quota. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the HUDA should accept the belated production of Integrity Certificate and confirm the allotment of Plot No. 946 (Sector 25) to the appellant

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 615 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendaran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice  J.M.Panchal Civil Appeal No. 607 of 2009 (Arising…

Property Matters

Co-sharer–When a co-sharer sells his share in the joint holding or any portion thereof and puts the vendor into possession of land in his possession what he transfers is his right as a co-sharers in said land and right to remain in its exclusive possession till joint holding is partitioned amongst all co-sharers—Sale of subsequent portion of land out of joint holding by the co-owners is nothing but a sale of a share out of the joint holding and is pre-emptible under Section 15(1)(b) of Act

Feb 24, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 514 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal No. 321…

Property Matters

Mortgage–Whether a document is mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with a condition of repurchase is a vexed question–One of the ingredients for determining the true nature of transaction, therefore, is that the condition of repurchase should be embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale–Indisputably, the said condition is satisfied– Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Mortgage–In a case where deed of mortgage is executed with a condition of repurchase, the amount of consideration remains the same.

Feb 24, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 489 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice  S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal No. 7400 of 2008…

Property Matters

Land and Property Law–Allotment of Plot–Cancellation of–Predecessor-in-interest of appellant not eligible for allotment of plot under scheme for rehabilitation of locally displaced persons–Notwithstanding the fact that transfer of plot in favour of appellant is duly approved by Trust, appellant did not acquire any independent right in the plot and be only acquired whatever rights the transferor or original allottee had therein–Defect in allotment made in original allottee’s favour on account of her ineligibility to avail scheme was inherited by appellant as her transferee

Jan 17, 2019 sclaw

2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 228 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2009…

You missed

Accident

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw
Customs & Excise

Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected.

Aug 16, 2026 sclaw