Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Supreme Court held that the partition decree was executable on its terms and set aside the High Court’s order that had halted execution pending a fresh final decree.
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in the review by reappreciating evidence and overturning earlier findings as if sitting in appeal; because the impugned review order went beyond correcting an apparent error on the face of the record, it was set aside and the earlier CRP order of 23.09.2022 was restored, with directions to the Trial Court to proceed expeditiously.
Source excerpt
The deed of general Power of Attorney dated 21.07.1971 did not expressly confer power to sell; therefore the agent’s alienations were unauthorized and void, the vendors of the respondent had no title to convey, the High Court erred in attributing constructive notice to the appellant under Section 3 and in treating failure to challenge alienations as fatal to the partition suit; accordingly the trial court decree for partition is restored.
Source excerpt
Appellant is entitled to a final decree in respect of bakhast and zirat lands subject to land ceiling laws; co-sharer intermediaries are entitled to share in mines worked at the time of vesting, but specific rights in mines must be determined in a separate suit due to lack of evidence and statutory complexities; benefit of Section 9 is not restricted to intermediaries directly working mines.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the respondent had decided to recover only 40% of the amount due, as evidenced by minutes of meetings, correspondence, and conduct. This decision amounted to a valid remission under s.63 of the Contract Act. Since more than 40% of the liability was already paid, nothing further remained due from the appellants. The respondent was not entitled to recover more. The remission did not require consideration under the Act.
Source excerpt
Rule 19(3)(b) excludes lineal descendants from computation for compensation even when the joint Hindu family consists only of a father and his sons; hence, compensation is to be calculated as one unit and not as tenants-in-common. The High Court’s interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning and intent of the rule.
Source excerpt
Explore more
