Title Declaration - The Legal Chamber

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...

Legal Heirs Not Substituted in Time? Supreme Court Explains When Entire Appeal Gets Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court correctly rejected the applications for condonation of delay and substitution of legal representatives of the deceased appellant. The Court ruled that the second appeal abated entirely as the decree was joint and indivisible, and non-substitution of the deceased appellant's legal representatives would lead to inconsistent decrees. The Court clarified that Order XLI Rule 4 of the CPC does not override the abatement principles under Order XXII, especially when the appeal was jointly filed by all appellants. The judgment emphasized that abatement is inevitable if the decree is based on common grounds and its reversal would create conflicting outcomes. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from Civil Suit No. 13 of 1983 (r...

Supreme Court : No More Delays! High Court Must Decide Property Dispute in 6 Months

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's second remand order for de-novo disposal, finding it erroneous given the possibility of deciding the appeal based on the interpretation of existing documents (sale deed, conveyance deed, and settlement deed). The Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal on its merits expeditiously within six months. Facts Of The Case: This appeal challenges a judgment from the High Court of Kerala, which set aside a trial court's dismissal of a suit and remanded the matter for de-novo disposal. The dispute concerns 9 cents of land in Poomthura Village, Ernakulam. The appellant's father executed a sale deed in 1955 for "Verumpattom Rights" over land in Survey No. 1236. Later, in 1964, he executed a conveyance deed for "Jenmam ...