Category: Property Matters

Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 – Section 16 – Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 – Rule 34 – Transfer of land – Lack of use of expression ‘package deal’ – Thus, if the Central Government could transfer land forming part of the compensation pool to a corporation, then it could very well transfer land to a State Government.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMESH PARSRAM MALANI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta…

Revenue records – Title – name was recorded in the Survey Settlement of 1964 as a recorded tenant in the suit property, it would not make him the sole and exclusive owner of the suit property – since entries in the revenue records do not confer title to a property, nor do they have any presumptive value.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAHLAD PRADHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SONU KUMHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil…

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Sections 58 and 86 – Allotment of land – considered view that directing the Indore Development Authority to revisit the matter afresh at this stage when the lease deed of the plot has been executed and the appellant has raised construction – No purpose.

We are of the considered view that directing the Indore Development Authority to revisit the matter afresh at this stage when the lease deed of the plot has been executed…

Thus, there can be no manner of dispute that a plaintiff can claim title to the property based on adverse possession – Plea of adverse possession can be used both as an offence and as a defence i.e. both as sword and as a shield. Appeal allowed.Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors. Followed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNAMURTHY S. SETLUR (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. O. V. NARASIMHA SETTY (D) BY LRS. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and…

Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 – Sections 22, 91 and 97 – Allotment of plot -Allotment of Plot No.2 in favour of the Appellant was illegal and that the Resolution passed by the Society in its meeting dated 25.03.1990 and the sale deed executed by the Society on 25.04.1989 were required to be quashed, are absolutely correct and fully justified – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH  SHIVKISHAN — Appellant Vs. SUJATA TARACHAND MAKHIJA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Ancestral Property—Karta of HUF executed sale deed of Co-parcenary Property in favour his second wife without any sale consideration—Such sale of HUF property was not for legal necessity or benefit to the estate-Sale deed executed by karta and further sale by his second wife to subsequent purchasers held to be null and void

2019(3) Law Herald (SC) 2054 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1257 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

You missed