Tag: Property Law

Supreme Court Slams Differential Pay, Upholds Fair Value for Fruit Trees on Acquired Land
19Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Slams Differential Pay, Upholds Fair Value for Fruit Trees on Acquired Land

The Supreme Court ruled that similarly situated landowners must receive equal compensation in land acquisition cases. It held that a prior judicial decision awarding a higher multiplier for identical orange trees constituted a "special circumstance," justifying the restoration of a 15x multiplier over a reduced 10x multiplier to prevent discriminatory treatment. Facts Of The Case: The case involved the appellants, landowners from village Khanapur in Akola district, whose land was acquired by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation pursuant to a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in August 1995. Possession was taken in April 1996. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the landowners sought a reference to a civil court. In its 2011 award, the reference court gra...
Read More
Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes
18Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Wake-Up Call for Courts: Supreme Court Says Long Delays Can Create New Rights in Property Disputes

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order condoning a delay of 5,250 days in filing a restoration application. It held that courts must be cognizant of third-party rights created during prolonged delays and that such condonation requires reasoned orders after hearing affected parties, who may be impleaded. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a suit for eviction filed by Mafatlal Mangilal Kothari and another (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) against the defendants concerning a disputed property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 1988, prompting the plaintiffs to file a First Appeal. This appeal was admitted by the Bombay High Court in 1989 but was eventually listed in 2008, where the Court passed an order stating that if the co...
Read More
Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline
17Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Key Ruling: Tenant’s Defence Struck Out for Missing 30-Day Deposit Deadline

This Supreme Court held that the time limit under Section 7(1) and (2) of the WBPT Act for depositing admitted rent and filing an application is mandatory and cannot be extended by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The proviso to Section 7(2) only permits an extension for paying the amount determined by the court post-adjudication, not for the initial statutory deposit and application. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Seventh Day Adventist Senior Secondary School, is a tenant in a premises in Kolkata for which the admitted monthly rent was Rs. 1090. The respondents, the landlords, filed an ejectment suit on 11.06.2019 on grounds including arrears of rent. The summons for this suit was served upon the appellant-tenant on 29.09.2022. The statutory period of 30 days for compliance und...
Read More
Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court
13Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Mandatory Rules for Ex-Parte Injunctions: A Key Reminder from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court emphasized that Order 39 Rule 3 CPC mandates recording reasons for granting ex parte injunction and strict compliance with procedural obligations by the applicant. Non-compliance warrants vacation of the ex parte order without adjudicating merits, ensuring the opposite party is not deprived of an early hearing. Facts Of The Case: The petitioner, Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited, filed a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of certain land parcels in District Barabanki, based on an Agreement to Sell from 2015 and a subsequent Sale Deed from April 2025. The plaintiff alleged that peaceful physical possession was handed over in 2015 upon full payment, after which they developed the land with significant investment. The Civil Judge (Senior Division...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal
9Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: You Can’t Claim Adverse Possession for the First Time on Appeal

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a plea of title by adverse possession cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage if it was not specifically pleaded in the plaint, framed as an issue, and proven during trial. Such a surprise claim prejudices the opposite party and is impermissible as a decision must be based on the case pleaded. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a title suit filed in 1999 by the plaintiffs (Kishundeo Rout & Ors.) against the defendants (Govind Rao & Ors.). The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a 1997 sale deed executed by the original plaintiff, Sudama Devi, in favour of the defendants was bogus, inoperative, and fit for cancellation. They also prayed for confirmation of their possession and a permanent injunction again...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules on Loan Disguised as Property Deal, Protects Homeowner from Forced Sale
6Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules on Loan Disguised as Property Deal, Protects Homeowner from Forced Sale

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid sale agreement, a prerequisite for specific performance under Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha. The burden of proof was not discharged as the sole evidence was self-serving and key witnesses were not examined. The High Court's reversal of concurrent factual findings was erroneous. Facts Of The Case: The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged sale agreement dated 12.02.1999, claiming the appellant (defendant) had agreed to sell his house for Rs. 70,000. They asserted having paid Rs. 55,000 as advance and taken possession, subsequently renting the property back to the appellant. The appellant contested the suit, denying any agreement to sell. His defense was that...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Right to Peaceful Protest, Quashes Criminal Case Against Andhra Educationists
28Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Peaceful Protest, Quashes Criminal Case Against Andhra Educationists

The Supreme Court held that certified copies of municipal documents, duly certified under Section 376 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, carry the same evidentiary value as originals. The failure of the Municipal Council to produce original records despite court orders justified drawing an adverse inference, and a registered sale certificate cannot be invalidated by a mere administrative resolution. Facts Of The Case: The dispute concerned two plots, No. 394 and 395, auctioned by the City Municipal Council (CMC). Respondent No. 2, Prabhudeva, purchased plot No. 395 in a 1973 auction, but his 1988 sale deed erroneously mentioned plot No. 394. Upon realizing this mistake, he applied for rectification in 1992. The CMC's Junior Engineer inspected the site and confirmed the error, lea...
Read More
Supreme Court Restores Ejectment Decree: ‘ND’ Postal Endorsement Doesn’t Invalidate Notice Under Transfer of Property Act
12Aug By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Restores Ejectment Decree: ‘ND’ Postal Endorsement Doesn’t Invalidate Notice Under Transfer of Property Act

The Supreme Court held that a notice sent via registered post under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887, even if returned with an "ND" (Not Delivered) endorsement. The High Court erred in setting aside the ejectment decree by ignoring this legal presumption of service. The Trial Court's decree was restored, affirming the landlord's right to evict the tenant for non-payment of rent and other charges. The judgment reinforces the principle that proper dispatch of a registered notice fulfills statutory service requirements unless rebutted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Krishna Swaroop Agarwal (since deceased and represented by his legal heir), was the landlord of a property in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, which ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: GMADA Not Liable for Homebuyers’ Loan Interest in Delayed Housing Project
16Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: GMADA Not Liable for Homebuyers’ Loan Interest in Delayed Housing Project

The Supreme Court ruled that while consumer commissions can award compensation for deficiency in service, including mental harassment and litigation costs, they cannot award interest on a loan taken by the consumer in addition to the stipulated contractual interest (8% compounded annually) on the refunded amount. The Court emphasized that the awarded interest sufficiently compensates for the deprivation of investment, and awarding interest under multiple heads for the same default is unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) launched a residential scheme called 'Purab Premium Apartments' in 2011. Anupam Garg and Rajiv Kumar (respondents) applied for flats, with Anupam Garg paying an earnest money of ₹5,50,000 for a 2-BHK + Servant Room apar...
Read More
Supreme Court : Sale Deeds Executed After Property Power of Attorney Revoked Are Invalid
10Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court : Sale Deeds Executed After Property Power of Attorney Revoked Are Invalid

The Supreme Court clarified that an unregistered agreement to sell or power of attorney does not confer title or interest in immovable property. The Court emphasized that property transfer requires a registered deed of conveyance. It also ruled that a plaint cannot be rejected entirely under Order VII Rule 11 CPC if even one distinct cause of action is triable. Facts Of The Case: Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. (appellant) claimed ownership of agricultural land and obtained a loan of Rs. 7.5 crores from Mahaveer Lunia (Respondent No. 1) in May 2014. The appellant's Board of Directors authorized their Managing Director and Respondent No. 1 to sell the property. Subsequently, an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell were executed in favor of Respondent No. 1 on May 24, 2014.In A...
Read More