Tag: Civil Procedure Code

Landmark Property Judgement: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Needed for Possession & Declaration Suits
16Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Property Judgement: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Needed for Possession & Declaration Suits

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of concurrent findings, ruling that a title deed is primary evidence of ownership. Mere presence of waste or manure on a property does not establish possession for the defendant. A declaratory suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is maintainable when the defendant fails to prove their own possession. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff, Suresh Tukaram Nerkar, filed a suit for declaration of his ownership and possession, and for a consequential permanent injunction against the defendants. His claim was based on a sale deed (Ext. 81) purportedly covering 150 square metres of land, which included a residential building on one portion ('ABCD') and an adjacent open plot ('PCDF'). The suit was triggered by the defendants, parti...
Read More
Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Judgment: Key Takeaway from Vanita vs. Shriram Insurance Co. Ltd.

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, thereby upholding the decision of the lower courts. The ruling signifies that the appellants' legal challenge against the insurance company's position was not tenable in law. The court found no merit to interfere, allowing the impugned judgment and the terms of the insurance policy to stand. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a claim filed by Vanita and others, likely the legal heirs of a deceased, seeking compensation under a motor accident claim. The accident presumably involved a vehicle insured with M/s Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) initially ruled in the case, and its decision was subsequently challenged in a High Court. It appears that the claimants' appeal was unsuccessful in the Hig...
Read More
Supreme Court : Wife as Attesting Witness Does Not Invalidate a Will
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Wife as Attesting Witness Does Not Invalidate a Will

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in framing an additional substantial question of law under Section 100(5) CPC without foundational pleadings, issues, or recorded reasons. A will, once duly executed and proved, must be given effect to, and succession cannot be reopened on a new legal case at the second appeal stage. The testamentary disposition was upheld. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the estate of C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius. The couple executed a registered joint will in 2003, bequeathing their properties to their son, C.P. Francis (the Appellant), subject to the condition that he pay specific monetary sums to his siblings. After the parents' deaths, the other children (Respondents) filed a suit for partition, claiming their parents died intestat...
Read More
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Strict Timelines for Pronouncing Judgments
29Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Strict Timelines for Pronouncing Judgments

This Supreme Court judgment reiterates the legal imperative for timely pronouncement of reserved judgments to uphold the right to speedy justice. The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to strictly adhere to the guidelines established in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, mandating a monitoring mechanism by the Registrar General and the Chief Justice to ensure judgments are delivered within three months of being reserved. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, the de-facto complainant in the case, challenged interim orders from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad concerning a long-pending criminal appeal filed by respondent no. 2 in 2008. The core grievance was the inordinate delay in the High Court's disposal of this criminal appeal. The appeal had initially been heard at length by a Div...
Read More
Supreme Court Ensures Consumer Rights Are Enforced : No More Paper Decrees
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ensures Consumer Rights Are Enforced : No More Paper Decrees

This judgment addresses an anomaly in Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended in 2002, which inadvertently limited enforcement to "interim orders" only. The Supreme Court applied purposive interpretation to read "any order" in place of "interim order," thereby allowing enforcement of final orders as decrees under CPC Order XXI for the period 2003–2020. It also clarified that appeals against execution orders lie only to the State Commission, with no further appeal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., comprising flat purchasers, filed a consumer complaint against the respondent builder, M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates, alleging deficient services and seeking execution of a conveyance deed for the common areas. The Distr...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Consent Decree Based on Arbitration Must Be Honored, Estoppel Applies
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Consent Decree Based on Arbitration Must Be Honored, Estoppel Applies

The Supreme Court held that a party cannot raise a plea of estoppel against law after its own conduct induced the other party to alter its position to its detriment. The doctrine of election and estoppel by conduct precludes a party from approbating and reprobating, thereby preventing it from challenging the validity of a compromise decree it had previously accepted. Facts Of The Case: The respondents, claiming the appellants had been removed as trustees, filed a suit for a perpetual injunction to restrain them from entering a school run by Guru Tegh Bahadur Charitable Trust. The Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding the suit was barred by Section 92 CPC. During the pendency of the respondents' appeal against this order, the parties mutually appointed a sol...
Read More
Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...
Read More
Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court
13Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasized that Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandates recording reasons for granting ex parte injunction and strict compliance with procedural obligations by the applicant. Non-compliance warrants vacation of the ex parte order without adjudicating merits, ensuring the opposite party is not deprived of an early hearing. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited, filed a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of certain land parcels in District Barabanki, based on an Agreement to Sell from 2015 and a subsequent Sale Deed from April 2025. The plaintiff alleged that peaceful physical possession was handed over in 2015 upon full payment, after which they developed the land with significant investment. The Civil Judge (Senior Division...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a plea of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage if it was not specifically pleaded in the plaint, framed as an issue, and proven during trial. Such a surprise claim prejudices the opposite party and is impermissible as a decision must be based on the case pleaded. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a title suit filed in 1999 by the plaintiffs (Kishundeo Rout & Ors.) against the defendants (Govind Rao & Ors.). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a 1997 sale deed executed by the original plaintiff, Sudama Devi, in favour of the defendants was bogus, inoperative, and fit for cancellation. They also prayed for confirmation of their possession and a permanent injunction again...
Read More
When a Society Becomes a “Trust”: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Mismanagement in Charitable NGOs
6Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

When a Society Becomes a “Trust”: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Mismanagement in Charitable NGOs

The Supreme Court ruled that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, can be construed as a constructive trust under Section 92 CPC if it is created for public charitable purposes and its properties are held in a fiduciary capacity. This allows aggrieved parties to sue for breach of trust and seek remedies like a scheme for administration. Facts Of The Case: In 2005, Operation ASHA, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was established to provide healthcare services, particularly tuberculosis treatment, to underprivileged sections of society. A dispute arose in 2020 when its co-founder and CEO, Sandeep Ahuja (Respondent No. 3), terminated the services of another co-founder, Dr. Shelly Batra (Respondent No. 1), alleging misrepresentation ...
Read More