Mixed Question of Law and Fact

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 Landmark Ruling: Limitation Issues in Arbitration Must Get a Full Hearing

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a preliminary issue of limitation, being a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be permanently foreclosed by an arbitrator based on a demurrer. The Court clarified that such a decision on demurrer is not a final adjudication on merits and does not preclude a subsequent examination based on evidence, as it would violate the fundamental mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Share Subscription Agreement (SSA) dated 23.07.2008 between Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (Petitioner) and Neelkanth Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent). The Petitioner invested Rs. 25 Crore, with a clause stipulating a refund if certain "Conditions Precedent" were not fulfilled within 90 days. The Respondent...

Supreme Court Revives Cheque Bounce Cases, Says ‘Sick Company’ Status is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail Card

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not automatically barred against a company declared sick under SICA, even if a restraint order under Section 22A exists. The nature of the restraint and the purpose of the cheque issuance are mixed questions of law and fact to be decided during trial based on evidence. Furthermore, a Magistrate lacks the inherent power to review or recall the issuance of summons. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shree Nagani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., supplied goods to the first respondent, L.D. Industries Ltd., which was declared a sick company by the BIFR. Towards the payment for these supplies, the accused company issued several cheques in 2001, which were subsequently dishonoured due to "insufficient funds"....