Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Property Matters

Property Matters

Adverse Possession – The Special Courts and Tribunals, indisputably are entitled to determine any question or issue including the question of title or possession in the proceedings initiated before it–Special Courts and the Tribunal not only have trappings of a court but also of a civil court and, thus, are entitled to determine complicated questions of title

Jul 26, 2020 sclaw

2009(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 1045 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M.…

Property Matters

Easement right–A right of easement can be declared only when the servient owner is a party to the suit–If the High Court was of the view that defendants were not the owners of the suit property, it could not have granted declaration of easementary right as no such relief could be granted unless the servient owner is impleaded as a defendant.

Jul 5, 2020 sclaw

Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal Nos.5798-5799 Of 2008 Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal {Decided on 23/09/2008} Important Point…

Property Matters

Housing – Recovery of amount of interest – Noida and Greater Noida Authorities HELD A prayer made the authorities be given liberty to recover amount of interest from the builder at the contractually agreed rate under the lease deed – It was lastly and rightly pointed out that the Court can fix a reasonable rate of interest – Considering the present scenario, This Court feel that the aforesaid submission is justified

Jun 10, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIKRAM CHATTERJI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra and Uday Umesh Lalit,…

Property Matters

West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 2011 – Rule 133(1) – Membership – It is clear that besides the initial amount of Rs. 3.86 lakhs, the petitioners did not deposit any further amount and kept disputing the demands raised by the Housing Society – HELD the order of the Society expelling the petitioners had come into effect and thereafter the six flats have already been allotted to six different persons, who have deposited the requisite amounts – Application dismissed.

Apr 26, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SK JALALUDDIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and Vineet Saran,…

Property Matters

Once A Mortgage, Always A Mortgage’ – Right To Redeem Mortgage Can Be Extinguished Only By Process Of Law : SC HELD “Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 casts a clear obligation on the mortgagee to hold any right acquired by him in the mortgaged property for the benefit of the mortgagor, as he is seen to be acting in a fiduciary capacity in respect of such transactions. Therefore, the advantage derived by the Appellants (mortgagee) by way of the re-grant must be surrendered to the benefit of the Respondents (Mirashi tenant––mortgagor)”

Apr 17, 2020 sclaw

Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 casts a clear obligation on the mortgagee to hold any right acquired by him in the mortgaged property for the benefit of…

Property Matters

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17, 17(1)(b), 17(1) and 17(2)(v) – Suit for declaration HELD When legislature has specifically excluded applicability of clause (b) and (C) with regard to any decree or order of a Court, applicability of Section 17(1)(b) cannot be imported in Section 17(2)(v) by any indirect method – Decree and order did not require registration and were fully covered by Section 17(2)(vi), which contains exclusion from registration as required in Section 17(1)

Mar 21, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS. — Appellant Vs. ANGREZ KAUR & ANR. — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha JJ. )…

Property Matters

A plea of adverse possession is founded on the acceptance that ownership of the property vests in another against whom the claimant asserts a possession adverse to the title of the other. Possession is adverse in the sense that it is contrary to the acknowledged title in the other person against whom it is claimed. HELD To substantiate a plea of adverse possession, the character of the possession must be adequate in continuity and in the public because the possession has to be to the knowledge of the true owner in order for it to be adverse.

Mar 16, 2020 sclaw

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 16321 OF 2011) SHRI UTTAM CHAND (D) THROUGH…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
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
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw