Tag: Immovable Property

Supreme Court: Decree for Specific Performance Does Not Create Title, So Assignment Deed Need Not Be Registered
6Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Decree for Specific Performance Does Not Create Title, So Assignment Deed Need Not Be Registered

The Supreme Court held that a deed assigning a decree for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning immovable property does not require mandatory registration under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act, 1908. This is because such a decree does not itself create, assign, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in the immovable property; it merely confers a right to seek performance through court execution. Facts Of The Case: The appellants are the legal heirs of a judgment-debtor against whom an ex-parte decree for specific performance of a sale agreement concerning immovable property was passed on 13.09.1993. The first respondent, Shanmugam, claimed to be the assignee of this decree by virtue of an assignment deed dated 17.07.1995. In 2004, the assignee filed an e...
Read More
Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Immovable Plant Not ‘Goods’, Excise Duty Not Levied on Bought-Out Parts

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that central excise duty is leviable only on movable “goods.” The final assembled boiler, being an immovable plant, is not excisable. Consequently, the value of bought-out items delivered directly to the site cannot be included in the assessable value for duty computation. The extended limitation period for the show-cause notice was also held inapplicable. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Lipi Boilers Ltd., entered into a contract to design, procure, manufacture, and supply machinery for a steam generating plant, including a 50 TPH boiler. The boiler was manufactured and cleared from the factory in a Completely Knocked Down (CKD) condition upon payment of central excise duty. Certain essential items, such as feed pumps and fans, were purchased duty-...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Decree for Specific Performance; Unilateral Cancellation Not Permitted
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Decree for Specific Performance; Unilateral Cancellation Not Permitted

The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance, ruling that a suit for specific performance is maintainable without a declaratory relief against a unilateral termination when the agreement is not determinable in nature. The subsequent purchasers were held not to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Facts Of The Case: On 28.04.2000, the original vendors executed an unregistered Agreement to Sell (ATS) in favour of the original vendees for agricultural land in Karnataka. The vendees paid a substantial part of the consideration and performed their obligations, including getting the land converted and tenants relocated. In 2003, the original vendors issued a unilateral termination notice citing pending litigation...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Service Tax Demand, Says No Suppression If Transactions are Transparent
30Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Service Tax Demand, Says No Suppression If Transactions are Transparent

The Supreme Court held that transactions involving the outright sale of land, even if accompanied by ancillary facilitation activities, do not constitute taxable services of a ‘Real Estate Agent’ under the Finance Act, 1994. The activity must involve a clear contract of agency. Mere sale of immovable property is excluded from the definition of ‘service’. Facts Of The Case: The respondent, M/s Elegant Developers, entered into three Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) for the identification, acquisition, and development of land parcels for real estate projects. Under these agreements, Elegant Developers was responsible for tasks like purchasing contiguous land blocks, obtaining title clearances, securing necessary government approva...
Read More
Specific Performance Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Decree in Property Dispute
15Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Specific Performance Upheld: Supreme Court Reinstates Decree in Property Dispute

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with the first appellate court's findings of fact, particularly regarding additional payment and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness. The Court reiterated that time is not ordinarily the essence in immovable property contracts and that acceptance of further payment post-deadline constitutes a waiver of the right to forfeit earnest money, making the suit for specific performance maintainable without a separate declaratory relief. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Annamalai, entered into a registered sale agreement dated 08.01.2010 with Saraswathi (D-1) and Dharmalingam (D-2) for two property items. The total consideration was Rs. 4,80,000, of which Rs. 4,70,000 was paid as a...
Read More
Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial

The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on grounds of limitation when seeking possession based on title, as the limitation period is 12 years under Article 65. The determination of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial, not a threshold dismissal. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, claiming to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur through the sisters of the original landowner Ronak Singh, filed a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and injunction. Their claim stemmed from a 1975 decree that set aside a prior gift made by Kartar Kaur and declared her the owner. Following Kartar Kaur's death in 1983, the defendants set up a 1976 will in their favour, initiating prolonged mutation proceedings wh...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: 12-Year Limit to Reclaim Property Applied in Forgery Case
4Nov By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: 12-Year Limit to Reclaim Property Applied in Forgery Case

The Supreme Court clarified that when a sale deed is void ab initio due to non-execution by the owner, a suit for possession based on title is governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, prescribing a 12-year limitation period. Article 59, which applies to voidable instruments requiring cancellation, is inapplicable. A plaintiff challenging a void transaction is not obligated to seek its cancellation and can file a simpliciter suit for possession within twelve years from when the defendant's possession became adverse. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, legal heirs of Rasali, instituted a suit claiming a one-third share in agricultural land, alleging that a sale deed dated 14.06.1973, which purportedly transferred the land to the defendant, Shanti Devi, was fraudulent. The...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules :You Can’t Claim Property with Just a Will or Power of Attorney
6Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules :You Can’t Claim Property with Just a Will or Power of Attorney

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms that an Agreement to Sell, General Power of Attorney, Will, or receipt of payment does not constitute a transfer of title under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Only a duly registered sale deed confers ownership. The doctrine of part-performance under Section 53A is inapplicable without the transferee being in possession, and a Will must be proved in strict compliance with the Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over a property in Delhi between two brothers, Suresh Chand (Plaintiff) and Ramesh Chand (Defendant No. 1), after the death of their father, Kundan Lal. Suresh claimed ownership of the property based on a set of documents executed by their father on a single day in 1996, including a Genera...
Read More
What Qualifies as ‘Goods’? Supreme Court Explains Why a Power Plant Isn’t Eligible for Export Benefits
20Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

What Qualifies as ‘Goods’? Supreme Court Explains Why a Power Plant Isn’t Eligible for Export Benefits

The Supreme Court held that a press release announcing a policy change does not constitute a "Change in Law" under a Power Purchase Agreement, as only duly promulgated notifications have legal force. It further ruled that deemed export benefits under the Foreign Trade Policy are inapplicable to immovable, integrated power plants, as the policy is designed for movable "goods" and requires strict adherence to defined supply and procurement conditions. Facts Of The Case: The case involved appeals by Nabha Power Limited and Talwandi Sabo Power Limited against the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). The dispute arose from a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) executed following a tariff-based competitive bidding process. The appellants claimed that post-bid notifications from the...
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