Legal Heirs - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Explains: How Legal Representatives Must Be Heard Before Estate Is Attached

9Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Explains: How Legal Representatives Must Be Heard Before Estate Is Attached

The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration Act is a self-contained code, limiting judicial interference. Letters Patent Appeals against execution orders under the Act are not maintainable. It mandated the issuance of notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the CPC to legal representatives as a jurisdictional prerequisite before proceeding against a deceased judgment debtor's estate. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from an arbitral award dated 12.07.2010, passed in favour of the appellant, Bharat Kantilal Dalal, against his late father concerning family assets. After the father's death, the appellant sought to execute the award against his uncle (the father's brother), who was the sole beneficiary and executor under the father's Will. The uncle, along with other respondents, res...

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...

Supreme Court: Key Takeaway from a Property Dispute: Exhaust Legal Remedies First, Go to Court Later

4Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Key Takeaway from a Property Dispute: Exhaust Legal Remedies First, Go to Court Later

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory remedy under Sections 37-A/38 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, providing a 30-day period to challenge an auction, is mandatory. Failure to exhaust this specific remedy within limitation bars subsequent writ jurisdiction under Article 226, irrespective of other pending proceedings or interim orders. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns recovery proceedings against the legal heirs of late Ramaswamy Udayar for arrack shop dues from 1972-73. Following an ex-parte decree in 1987, the Revenue authorities issued an auction notice in 2005 for his properties. The appellant, his widow, challenged this notice via a writ petition. Although the High Court granted an interim stay on the confirmation of sale, the auction it...

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...

Supreme Court: Registration Authorities Can’t Demand Mutation Proof Before Registering a Sale

28Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Registration Authorities Can’t Demand Mutation Proof Before Registering a Sale

The Supreme Court struck down sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) of Rule 19 of the Bihar Registration Rules, 2019, holding them ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908. The Court ruled that the rule-making power under Section 69 does not authorize registering authorities to demand proof of mutation or title as a precondition for document registration, deeming such a requirement arbitrary and beyond the scope of the Act. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from challenges to the 2019 amendments to the Bihar Registration Rules, 1989, specifically the introduction of sub-rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19. These new rules empowered registering authorities to refuse registration of a sale or gift deed if the document did not mention, and the seller did not produce proof of, a "jamabandi a...

Registered Release Deeds Are Binding: Supreme Court Sets New Precedent in Family Partition Case

19Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Registered Release Deeds Are Binding: Supreme Court Sets New Precedent in Family Partition Case

The Supreme Court held that unregistered partition deeds can be used collaterally to prove severance of joint family status and subsequent separate possession. Valid registered release deeds by coparceners are immediately effective to sever their interest, not contingent on being "acted upon," and can create an equitable estoppel against future claims. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a partition suit concerning the joint family property of Pillappa, who died in 1969. The plaintiffs, his sons and daughters, sought division of Schedule A properties (ancestral) and Schedule B properties (purchased jointly in the names of defendant no. 5, a son, and defendant no. 6, a son-in-law). Defendant no. 5 contested, claiming a prior partition between him and plaintiff no. 1 in 1972 via an ...

Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry

4Jan

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Non-Examination of Complainant Vitiates Departmental Inquiry

The Supreme Court held that a departmental inquiry is vitiated if based on the unexamined statement of a key complainant, denying the delinquent employee the right to cross-examination—a violation of natural justice. Charges unsupported by conclusive evidence cannot sustain a dismissal order, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, V.M. Saudagar, was a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) with Central Railway, Nagpur. On 31 May 1988, a Railway Vigilance team conducted a surprise check on his coach. He was subsequently charge-sheeted in July 1989 for alleged misconduct, including demanding illegal gratification from three passengers for berth allotment, possessing excess undeclared cash, failing to recover a small fare difference, and forgin...

Supreme Court: An Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership Under Muslim Law

31Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: An Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership Under Muslim Law

The Supreme Court affirmed that an agreement to sell does not transfer title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Property remains part of the deceased's matruka (estate) until a registered sale deed is executed. Inheritance under Muslim law applies to the entire estate, with the widow entitled to a one-fourth share as a sharer, absent descendants. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the inheritance of Chand Khan's property between his widow, Zoharbee (appellant), and his brother, Imam Khan (respondent). Chand Khan died issueless, leaving behind two plots of land. Zoharbee claimed the entire property as matruka (estate) and, under Muslim law, sought a three-fourths share as the surviving spouse. Imam Khan contended that one plot had been transferred v...

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 Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers

28Dec

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Independent Officer to Verify Arrears, Stop Illegal Recoveries from Workers

This Supreme Court judgment addresses contempt proceedings for non-compliance with a prior Supreme Court order modifying an industrial tribunal award. The Court appoints an auditor to resolve wage calculation discrepancies, assess excess payment recoveries, and determine statutory gratuity interest. It refrains from intervening in a separate High Court matter concerning provident fund dues, affirming the High Court's competence on that issue. Facts Of The Case: The contempt petition arose from the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation's (BMC) non-compliance with a Supreme Court judgment dated April 7, 2017. That judgment had modified an Industrial Tribunal award, which originally directed the BMC to grant permanent status and retrospective benefits to approximately 2,700 sanitation workers ...