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

J. GANAPATHA AND OTHERS versus M/S N. SELVARAJALOU CHETTY TRUST REP. BY ITS TRUSTEES AND OTHERS

The court held that the Plaint Schedule was validly transferred to the late Padmini Chandrasekaran by virtue of the court auction dated 04.05.1962 and the subsequent sale deed; therefore Defendant No.1 could not acquire or convey title by the will of 30.05.1962. In the circumstances, the trial court permissibly moulded relief in favour of the executor to set aside the sale deeds in favour of Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 and grant injunctive relief to give effect to the probated will; the appellate courts correctly confirmed this and the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Moulding of relief
  • Court auction sale
  • Sale deed
  • Probate of will
  • Executor's rights
  • Title dispute
Read case analysis
Hindu succession

SRI MAHESH versus SANGRAM & ORS

The adoption of the appellant by the widow (defendant No.1) relates back to the date of death of the adoptive father, but all lawful alienations made by the adoptive mother bind the adopted son; the registered sale deed dated 13.12.2007 was a lawful alienation and is binding on the appellant and must be upheld, whereas the registered gift deed dated 27.08.2008 was invalid for lack of delivery/acceptance and the trial Court’s declaration that the gift was null and void and that the appellant is entitled to the entire B and C schedule properties as sole heir is to be restored (High Court’s reve…

Source excerpt

  • Relation back principle
  • Effects of adoption
  • Validity of sale deed
  • Validity of gift deed
  • Partition
  • Acceptance and delivery of gift
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST AND ORS. versus SHRIMANT CHHATRAPATI UDAYAN RAJE PRATAPSINH MAHARAJ BHONSLE AND ANOTHER

On a meaningful reading of the plaint and the documents relied upon, the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation: the principal transfers (court auction in 1938 and registered sale deed in 1952) gave constructive notice and/or deemed knowledge to the plaintiff or his predecessors, the plaintiff’s alleged knowledge date (02.03.2007) is fictional, and the pleaded fraud is vague and only supports a claim of voidable rather than void instruments; accordingly the plaint was rightly rejectable under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC and the trial and High Court orders refusing rejection were set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Order vii rule 11(d) cpc
  • Rejection of plaint
  • Limitation act articles 58, 59, 60, 65
  • Constructive notice (t.p. act s.3)
  • Registered document presumption
  • Voidable vs void transactions
Read case analysis
Adverse possession

NEELAM GUPTA & ORS. versus RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.

The registered sale deed dated 04.06.1968 conveyed ownership to the plaintiff; the appellants failed to prove adverse possession for the prescriptive period and their evidence showed only permissive possession (adhiyadar), so the suit was not barred by limitation under Article 65 and the High Court correctly decreed recovery of possession for the plaintiff; sale deeds were not void for minority or benami on the facts.

Source excerpt

  • Joint hindu family property
  • Bhumiswami rights
  • Animus possidendi
  • Permissive possession
  • Prescriptive period
  • Sale deed
Read case analysis
Landlord and tenant law

BIJAY KUMAR MANISH KUMAR HUF versus ASHWIN BHANULAL DESAI

On a prima facie view of the record the tenant had delayed payment of rent and other dues; the lease stood forfeited/determined by reason of alleged non-payment and an unchallenged independent valuer’s report fixed the market occupational rate at INR 41 per sq.ft. To protect the landlord’s entitlement to monetary benefits of the property during the pendency of the SLPs and in exercise of incidental/equitable jurisdiction, the Court directed the respondent to deposit Rs.5,15,05,512 with the Registry within four weeks, subject to the final outcome of the Special Leave Petitions.

Source excerpt

  • Mesne profit
  • Occupational charges
  • Forfeiture/determination of lease
  • Possession
  • Valuation/market rent
Read case analysis
Transfer of property

CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGH versus MUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.

Because the appellant filed the suit and obtained a temporary injunction before the release deed (28.07.2003) and the subsequent sale (16.06.2004), those alienations were effected during the pendency of the suit and while the injunction was operative and are therefore covered by the doctrine of lis pendens; consequently subsequent purchasers cannot claim protection as bona fide purchasers and the release and sale deeds are without legal sanctity as against the appellant, who is entitled to specific performance (subject to payment of balance consideration).

Source excerpt

  • Lis pendens
  • Bona fide purchaser
  • Temporary injunction
  • Specific performance
  • Release deed
  • Sale deed
Read case analysis
Property law

SHAKEEL AHMED versus SYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN

A suit for possession and mesne profits cannot be maintained on the basis of unregistered Agreement to Sell or unregistered General Power of Attorney because such unregistered documents do not confer any right, title or interest in immovable property; therefore the decree based on those documents must be set aside and the suit dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Unregistered documents
  • Agreement to sell
  • Power of attorney
  • Will
  • Possession and mesne profits
  • Hiba (oral gift)
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

SHIVSHANKARA & ANR versus H.P. VEDAVYASA CHAR

Amendment of the defendants' written statement at the appellate stage was rightly refused due to undue delay, lack of explanation and because it would have required fresh issues/de novo trial contrary to remand scope; the suit was maintainable as one based on prior possession and not abated for non-substitution/non-joinder because the estate/interest was fully and substantially represented by other defendants, and transfers/sale during pendency could not be acted upon on lis pendens principles (Section 52 TP Act) so concurrent findings of trial and High Court affirming plaintiff's possessory…

Source excerpt

  • Amendment of pleadings at appellate stage
  • Abatement and non-joinder of parties
  • Doctrine of lis pendens (section 52, transfer of property act)
  • Possessory title and prior possession
  • Maintainability of suit
  • Effect of remand
Read case analysis
Transfer of property

ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN & ANR versus M. KAMALA AND ORS. & ETC.

Although a release deed executed by a person who only had a spes successionis could not by itself effect a transfer (s.6(a) TPA), the father’s execution of the release deed coupled with receipt of valuable consideration and conduct that led the owner to treat the branch as renounced created an equitable estoppel which barred both the father (had he survived) and his children from asserting succession rights; Section 8 HMGA’s prohibition on binding minors by personal covenant did not avail the appellants because they had no independent right at the time and their claim flowed through the estop…

Source excerpt

  • Spes successionis
  • Release deed
  • Estoppel
  • Section 6(a) transfer of property act, 1882
  • Section 8 hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956
  • Class i heirs under hindu succession act, 1956
Read case analysis
Maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens act, 2007

SUDESH CHHIKARA versus RAMTI DEVI & ANR

Section 23(1) applies only where the transfer was expressly made subject to the transferee providing basic amenities and basic physical needs to the transferor and the transferee then refuses or fails to provide them; because respondent no.1 did not plead or establish that the release deed was made subject to such a condition, the Tribunal's declaration that the release deed was void could not be sustained and the orders of the Tribunal and High Court were set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Section 23(1) applicability
  • Voidable transfers
  • Gift and release deeds
  • Maintenance of senior citizens
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.