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
Wakf act

TELANGANA STATE WAKF BOARD & ANR. versus MOHAMED MUZAFAR

The Wakf Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the central question whether the suit schedule properties were Wakf properties under Sections 6 and 7 of the Wakf Act; it analyzed the evidence (including the gazette notification/amended Muntakhab and earlier litigation) and validly decreed the suit, and the High Court erred in reappreciating evidence in revision and in holding the suit not maintainable; therefore the High Court order setting aside the tribunal judgment was set aside and the tribunal judgment restored.

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction of wakf tribunal
  • Maintainability of suit
  • Reappreciation of evidence in revision
  • Dispute over gazette notification and extent of wakf property
Read case analysis
Tenancy

INDU BAI & ORS. versus STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

For the tenancy/allotment appeals the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order(s) and remitted the writ petitions to the High Court to decide the claims in accordance with law; in the habeas corpus matters the Supreme Court held that habeas corpus will not lie to secure release where detention follows lawful conviction and sentence and that the High Court erred in directing release under the G.O. without directing the competent authorities to decide pending representations, but on merits and in exercise of Article 142 the Court ordered immediate release of certain detenus whose cases were…

Source excerpt

  • Habeas corpus
  • Remission and parole
  • Article 226
  • Article 142
  • Article 161
  • Probation officer reports
Read case analysis
Tenancy

CHANDRAKANT BABAN MOTKARI & ORS. versus GOTIRAM LAXMAN MOTKARI (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

There is no uncertainty regarding tenancy status as certificate under Section 32M has been issued, is final and was unsuccessfully challenged; therefore, Civil Court need not stay proceedings or remit the issue to the Mamlatdar. The trial and appellate courts' concurrent findings are correct, and the suit is an impermissible attempt to reopen a settled issue.

Source excerpt

  • Protected tenancy
  • Partition
  • Bar of civil court jurisdiction
  • Certificate under section 32m
Read case analysis
Land law

VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (DEAD) THRU LRS. & ORS.

The ratio in earlier Supreme Court judgments supports respondent that tenants who do not exercise their purchase right within the prescribed period under Section 32F lose such right. However, the 1969 statutory amendments and their object require extending intimation requirements and benefit to tenants of other disabled landlords (widows and mentally or physically disabled), which previous judgments did not address and need reconsideration.

Source excerpt

  • Deemed purchase by tenant
  • Suspension of tenant's right
  • Limitation on right to purchase
  • Landlord's disability
  • Statutory amendment interpretation
Read case analysis
Land law

SALEM MUNICIPALITY versus P. KUMAR & ORS.

The land in question formed part of a tank as per the lease deeds and was, under statutory definition, not ryoti land, and the predecessor-in-interest and subsequently the plaintiff could not be treated as ryots entitled to ryotwari patta. All applications for patta were rejected; there was no evidence of continuous lawful possession or title. Thus, the plaintiff could not claim any right, title, or interest in the property or seek a decree of declaration or injunction. Findings of the High Court regarding possession were perverse and unsustainable. The approach of the High Court was not lega…

Source excerpt

  • Ryotwari patta
  • Tamil nadu estates (abolition and conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948
  • Definition of ryot and ryoti land
  • Vesting of estates
  • Rights on water tank land
Read case analysis
Rent control

FLORA ELIAS NAHOUM & ORS. versus IDRISH ALI LASKAR

The appellants proved the ground of sub-letting against the respondent within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, by evidencing inconsistent and unproven explanations as to Joynal Mullick's presence in the suit shop, at which point the landlord is entitled to eviction even if other grounds are not established.

Source excerpt

  • Eviction
  • Sub-letting
  • Burden of proof
  • Unauthorized construction
Read case analysis
Property law

STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. versus FAKIR CHARAN SETHI DEAD THROUGH LRS AND ORS.

Plaintiffs failed to prove possession and cultivation of the land as on the date of vesting under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. Mere claim without specific evidence is insufficient. Consequently, plaintiffs are disentitled to reliefs and the decree in their favour must be reversed.

Source excerpt

  • Continuity of tenure
  • Orissa estate abolition act
  • Tenancy recognition
  • Burden of proof
  • Fraud and authenticity of judicial orders
Read case analysis
Land reform

HARSHA V. RAI versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

Neither the tribunal nor the High Court properly examined whether the leased property was agricultural land being cultivated personally by the tenant on the appointed day, making their orders unsustainable; rights must be crystallized as per conditions existing on 1st March 1974.

Source excerpt

  • Tenant registration
  • Agricultural land definition
Read case analysis
Tenancy

GOVINDA BALA PATIL (D) BY LRS. versus GANPATI RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADE (D) BY LRS.

The Tribunal was within its rights to set aside the finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer as the latter’s decision was perverse and failed to consider relevant evidence. Section 43A of the Act applies to leases granted to a single person as well, by virtue of Section 13 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904.

Source excerpt

  • Lease for cultivation
  • Applicability of statutory exemption
  • Revisional jurisdiction
  • Standard of proof in tenancy proceedings
Read case analysis
Tenancy

MOHD. AYUB & ANR. versus MUKESH CHAND

The landlord's bonafide need for the premises outweighs the hardship to the tenant, and the courts below erred in relying solely on the landlord's financial position and in not properly considering comparative hardship. The landlord is entitled to possession and the tenant must vacate, with time allowed for relocation.

Source excerpt

  • Eviction
  • Bonafide requirement
  • Comparative hardship
  • Uttar pradesh urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent and eviction) act, 1972
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.