Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Property law

VENIGALLA KOTESWARAMMA versus MALEMPATI SURYAMBA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that (1) a partition suit was maintainable without a separate declaratory relief against an alleged agreement for sale because an agreement for sale does not itself create a title or interest (s.54 TPA); (2) the appeal by defendants 16–18 in the High Court (AS No.1887 of 1988) abated as against deceased defendant 2 for want of substitution of his legal representatives, rendering that appeal incompetent to proceed against the surviving respondents and making the High Court's validation of Ex. B-10 unsustainable; and (3) on merits, the Trial Court rightly found Ex. B-10 u…

Source excerpt

  • Partition
  • Validity of wills
  • Agreement for sale
  • Order xxii abatement and substitution
  • Section 54 transfer of property act
Read case analysis
Registration act, 1908

GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS. versus ANGREZ KAUR & ANR.

The decree dated 09.01.1995 was a decree declaring pre-existing rights in respect of the suit property (based on an admitted registered will and family settlement) and therefore fell within the exclusion in Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 and did not require registration; further, there was no proved fraud or coercion in obtaining the decree, so the High Court and First Appellate Court orders holding the decree void for non-registration were set aside and the trial court decree restored.

Source excerpt

  • Registration of documents
  • Compromise decree
  • Family settlement
  • Proof of will
  • Fraud in obtaining decree
Read case analysis
Partition

SAJAN SETHI versus RAJAN SETHI

Because the appellant-defendant raised the dispute over common areas in his written statement, the Trial Court properly framed and decided that issue on the evidence; on the facts (corner plot with side lane providing direct access to the defendant's staircase) the defendant could not claim use of the front driveway and was limited to easementary access to water pipes/booster pump, and therefore the High Court's directions and the decree for partition were supported by the record; the appeals are dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Partition of property
  • Common areas
  • Interpretation of will
  • Easementary rights
  • Court-ordered sale/auction
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.