Property Law - The Legal Chamber

Landmark Property Judgement: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Needed for Possession & Declaration Suits

16Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Landmark Property Judgement: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Needed for Possession & Declaration Suits

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of concurrent findings, ruling that a title deed is primary evidence of ownership. Mere presence of waste or manure on a property does not establish possession for the defendant. A declaratory suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, is maintainable when the defendant fails to prove their own possession. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff, Suresh Tukaram Nerkar, filed a suit for declaration of his ownership and possession, and for a consequential permanent injunction against the defendants. His claim was based on a sale deed (Ext. 81) purportedly covering 150 square metres of land, which included a residential building on one portion ('ABCD') and an adjacent open plot ('PCDF'). The suit was triggered by the defendants, parti...

Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Sets Aside Review Order

11Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Daughter’s Coparcenary Rights Upheld: Supreme Court Sets Aside Review Order

The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. A review cannot re-appreciate evidence or reverse findings as an appeal would. The order under review did not correct a patent error but substituted a view, which is impermissible in review proceedings. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a partition suit (O.S. No. 192 of 2000) filed by Subramani against his father, Munusamy Naidu, concerning ancestral properties. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed in 2003, dividing the property into two equal shares. The Appellant, Malleeswari, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu, was not initially impleaded in this suit. Subsequent to the decree, her father executed a sale deed in favor of the first respo...

Supreme Court : Wife as Attesting Witness Does Not Invalidate a Will

9Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Wife as Attesting Witness Does Not Invalidate a Will

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in framing an additional substantial question of law under Section 100(5) CPC without foundational pleadings, issues, or recorded reasons. A will, once duly executed and proved, must be given effect to, and succession cannot be reopened on a new legal case at the second appeal stage. The testamentary disposition was upheld. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the estate of C.R. Pius and Philomina Pius. The couple executed a registered joint will in 2003, bequeathing their properties to their son, C.P. Francis (the Appellant), subject to the condition that he pay specific monetary sums to his siblings. After the parents' deaths, the other children (Respondents) filed a suit for partition, claiming their parents died intestat...

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...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities

30Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities

The Supreme Court held that a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person and a suit filed against the proprietor personally is maintainable. Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC is merely enabling and does not bar a suit against the proprietor, who remains the real party in interest for all transactions conducted in the trade name. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, owners of a property, leased it to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship concern of respondent Pilla Durga Prasad, via a registered lease deed. After the lease expired, the lessee failed to vacate, prompting the appellants to file an eviction suit. The original suit named the lessee as defendant no.1 (Aditya Motors), along with the sub-lessee and its directors. During the proceedings, the appellants amended the plaint, substituti...

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Slum Authority Can’t Acquire Land Without Notice

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Slum Authority Can’t Acquire Land Without Notice

The Supreme Court affirmed the landowner's preferential right to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. It held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority must issue a specific notice inviting the owner to submit a redevelopment scheme before any acquisition under Section 14 can be initiated. The 2018 Amendment to the Act did not dilute this mandatory requirement, and acquisition proceedings commenced without such notice were declared illegal. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a plot of land in Bandra, Mumbai, owned by the Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount (Church Trust). A portion of this land had been encroached by hutments since the 1930s and was declared a slum area in 1978. The slum dwellers formed the Shri Kadeshwari Cooperative Housing Soci...

Supreme Court Clarifies Slum Laws: Landlords Get First Right to Redevelop Their Property

26Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Slum Laws: Landlords Get First Right to Redevelop Their Property

This Supreme Court judgement affirms that landowners possess a preferential right to redevelop their property declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. The Court held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority must formally invite the landowner to submit a rehabilitation scheme. The power of the State to acquire the land under Section 14 of the Act is subject to this preferential right and cannot be exercised before this right is legally extinguished. Facts Of The Case: The case concerned a land dispute in Mumbai, where Indian Cork Mills Private Limited (ICM) was the owner of a plot that had been encroached upon by slum dwellers. A portion of the land was declared a slum area in 1979, and later, in 2011, the entire plot was declared a Slum Reh...

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Additional Evidence in Appeals Must Align with Pleadings

25Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Additional Evidence in Appeals Must Align with Pleadings

The Supreme Court held that an appellate court must examine the pleadings of the party seeking to lead additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) CPC. Permission to adduce such evidence cannot be granted unless the case sought to be established is already pleaded. The matter was remanded for reconsideration on this legal principle. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, Iqbal Ahmed and another, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.02.1995 against the defendant, Abdul Shukoor. The plaintiffs claimed they had agreed to purchase the defendant's house property for ₹10,67,000, having paid ₹5,00,000 as advance. They pleaded that they had sold their own immovable properties to arrange the funds for this purchase and were always ready and willing to perform thei...

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough

23Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Over Tainted Agreement: Readiness to Pay Not Enough

The Supreme Court upheld the denial of specific performance, ruling that a material alteration in the sale agreement—visibly apparent from the use of different ink for a property's description—vitiated the contract. Courts are not always obligated to seek expert opinion under Section 73 of the Evidence Act when such an alteration is plainly discernible upon a mere perusal of the document itself. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiff-appellant, Syed Basheer Ahmed, entered into a sale agreement dated July 15, 1984, with the first defendant for the purchase of two properties: Item No. 1 (owned by the first defendant) and Item No. 2 (owned by a third party). The total agreed consideration was Rs. 56,000/-, with an advance of Rs. 1,000/- paid. The agreement stipulated that the sale deed was to be ...

Supreme Court: Civil Courts Can Hear Cases If Land is Declared Non-Agricultural During Trial

20Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Civil Courts Can Hear Cases If Land is Declared Non-Agricultural During Trial

The Supreme Court held that jurisdiction is determined by the nature of the land at the time of adjudication, not filing. A subsequent declaration of land as non-agricultural under the UPZALR Act during pending proceedings validates a civil court's jurisdiction, and appeals are a continuation of the original suit. Facts Of The Case: In 1970, the appellant-landlord and the predecessor of respondents 1-3 entered a registered tenancy agreement for a piece of land to establish an Indian Oil petrol pump at a monthly rent of ₹150. The tenant defaulted on rent payments from July 1972, prompting the landlord to file a suit for eviction and arrears of rent in 1974 in the Civil Court. The tenants contested the Civil Court's jurisdiction, claiming the land was agricultural and thus only the Revenue...