Section 43 - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that High Courts under Section 100 CPC must frame only correct and appropriate substantial questions of law; erroneous formulation vitiates the second appellate judgment. Liberty to sue reserved in statutory proceedings does not permit reconsideration of concluded issues. Matter remanded for fresh admission and framing of proper substantial questions. Facts Of The Case: The dispute originated from proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, concerning land in Tamil Nadu. The appellant-temple authority obtained patta grants in its favour through orders passed under the Act. However, when the matter reached the High Court in its appellate statutory capacity, the Court by order dated 22.09.1989 confirmed the grant of patta...

The Supreme Court held that In disputes over landlord-tenant relationships, the Supreme Court clarified that under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, the production of rent receipts signed by the landlord constitutes prima facie evidence of the jural relationship. Once this initial burden is discharged, the Rent Controller is justified in proceeding with the eviction case without delving into title disputes, which are beyond its scope. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, H.S. Puttashankara, filed an eviction petition against the respondent, Yashodamma, under the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, concerning a property in Bengaluru. The appellant claimed to be the landlord, asserting that the property originally belonged to his great-grandfather and devolved to him through a release deed from other legal...

Tag: Section 43

Liberty to Sue Doesn’t Mean Relitigation: Supreme Court Restores Appeal in Ryotwari Act Dispute

Proof of Tenancy: Supreme Court’s Key Ruling on Rent Receipts and Title Disputes