Indian civil law - The Legal Chamber

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...

Supreme Court Rules : Res Judicata Can’t Be Decided at Plaint Stage

The Supreme Court held that the plea of res judicata cannot be adjudicated under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as it requires an in-depth examination of pleadings, issues, and decisions from the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of a plaint rejection application. The Court emphasized that only the averments in the plaint must be considered, and defenses or external documents cannot be relied upon. The judgment clarified that issues like fraud, collusion, or jurisdictional defects in a prior decree must be examined during trial, not at the preliminary stage. The appeal was allowed, and the suit was restored for expeditious disposal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Pandurangan, purchased a disputed property from Hussain Babu in 1998, who had earlier acquired ...

Supreme Court Settles ISKCON Bangalore-Mumbai Temple Dispute After 20+ Years

The Supreme Court ruled on the ownership dispute between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under Karnataka Societies Act) and ISKCON Mumbai (Maharashtra Public Trust) over temple properties. It upheld the Trial Court's decree declaring ISKCON Bangalore as the rightful owner, citing documentary evidence (sale deeds, allotment records) and rejecting claims of fraudulent manipulation. The Court dissolved the oversight committee, emphasizing societies' independent legal status under state registration laws. The judgment clarified that funding sources (even from ISKCON Mumbai) don’t determine ownership, and dismissed ancillary appeals linked to the dispute. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a protracted legal battle between ISKCON Bangalore (registered under the Karnataka Societies Registrati...