Property Dispute - The Legal Chamber

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

25May

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

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...

Supreme Court Verdict on Ownership and Illegal Possession:Why the Supreme Court Dismissed the Appeal in the Land Dispute Case

The Supreme Court upheld the eviction order under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, ruling that the appellant unlawfully occupied land in Survey No. 9 despite holding a deed for Survey No. 10. The Court emphasized that land grabbing requires illegal possession with intent, distinct from mere trespass, and affirmed the Special Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes summarily. The appellant’s claim of adverse possession failed due to lack of hostile animus and proof of long-standing occupation. The judgment reinforced the strict interpretation of land grabbing under the Act, aligning with precedent in Konda Lakshmana Bapuji v. Govt. of A.P. (2002). Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over 252 square yards of land in Survey No. 9 of Saroornagar V...

Supreme Court Rejects Delay Condonation in Property Dispute: No Second Chance for Delay “Limitation Act”

The Supreme Court ruled that repeated applications for condonation of delay under different procedural provisions (Order IX Rule 13 and Order XLI Rule 3A CPC) cannot be entertained when the same grounds were already rejected in earlier rounds. Emphasizing strict adherence to limitation laws, the Court held that finality of judicial orders must prevail over belated challenges, and litigants cannot abuse process by re-agitating identical delay explanations. The judgment reaffirmed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act doesn’t apply where prior delay condonation pleas were dismissed on merits. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a 2015 sale agreement between the appellant (Thirunagalingam) and respondent No. 1 (Lingeswaran) concerning property in Nainarkoil village. When the responden...