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
Hindu law

DORAIRAJ versus DORAISAMY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

The High Court correctly held that the suit properties were, in large part, joint Hindu family properties given the admitted genealogy and existence of ancestral income-yielding lands; the burden lay on the appellant to prove self-acquisition and legal necessity for alienations by the Karta, which was not established except in limited items, the unregistered Will was properly treated as suspicious and not relied upon, and therefore the High Court's decree awarding the plaintiff a 5/16th share (with exclusion of specified items) was upheld; the appeals were dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Karta
  • Coparcenary
  • Self-acquired property
  • Burden of proof
  • Will
  • Partition
Read case analysis
Property law

RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS. versus SURESH CHAND AND ANR.

Agreement to sell, General Power of Attorney, affidavit and receipt did not transfer title because no registered sale deed was executed as required by Section 54; the General Power of Attorney did not effect conveyance; the registered Will was not properly proved and was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and therefore did not confer title; plaintiff was not in possession and so could not avail Section 53A; accordingly the judgments below upholding plaintiff's title were set aside and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Suit
  • Possession
  • Mesne profit
  • Declaration
  • Mandatory injunction
  • General power of attorney
Read case analysis
Succession

METPALLI LASUM BAI (SINCE DEAD) AND OTHERS versus METAPALLI MUTHAIH (D) BY LRS.

The trial Court correctly found the registered Will (Ext.-A1) genuine and the oral family settlement corroborated by admissions and possession; because the defendant admitted the testator's signatures and plaintiff's possession of the allotted land, the High Court erred in reducing plaintiff's share and substituting its own factual conclusions, so the trial Court's decree restoring plaintiff's title and validating the sale was restored.

Source excerpt

  • Will
  • Registered will
  • Family settlement
  • Declaration of title
  • Partition
  • Admission of signatures
Read case analysis
Property law

RAJEEV GUPTA & ORS. versus PRASHANT GARG & ORS.

The Supreme Court held the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation because the primary relief was cancellation of registered sale deeds and the right to sue first accrued in June 1992 when the sale deeds were executed/possession taken; therefore Article 59/58 three-year limitation applied and the 2003 suit was time-barred; additionally the sale deeds were not void ab initio under Section 52 ToP (and appellants were bona fide purchasers under Section 41), the Will was not proved as required by Section 68 Evidence Act and could not be treated as admitted against appellants, and the first appe…

Source excerpt

  • Will
  • Cancellation of sale deed
  • Recovery of possession
  • Limitation period (articles 58,59,65)
  • Lis pendens (section 52, transfer of property act)
  • Bona fide purchaser (section 41, transfer of property act)
Read case analysis
Property law

N.P. SASEENDRAN versus N.P. PONNAMMA & ORS.

The 1985 instrument is a settlement (gift by settlement) which vested rights in praesenti in the plaintiff while reserving life interest to the donor and his wife; the plaintiff accepted and acted upon the deed (registration and custody of title deed), so the donor could not unilaterally cancel it and the cancellation deed and subsequent sale deed dated 19.10.1993 are invalid; the High Court judgment declaring the plaintiff's title is confirmed.

Source excerpt

  • Gift
  • Settlement
  • Will
  • Interplay between gift, will and settlement
  • Reservation of life interest
  • Acceptance and revocation of gift
Read case analysis
Succession law

GOPAL KRISHAN & ORS. versus DAULAT RAM & ORS.

Section 63(c) must be read disjunctively; testimony of the attesting witness that he saw the testator affix his mark satisfied the requirements of Section 63(c) without need to show that the mark was appended 'at the direction' of the testator, so the High Court erred in holding the Will unproved; the Will and the subsequent sale deeds are valid.

Source excerpt

  • Will
  • Testator
  • Mental faculties
  • Attesting witnesses
  • Direction of the testator
  • Section 63 of succession act, 1925
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

LEHNA SINGH (D) BY LRS. versus GURNAM SINGH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act does not require framing of a substantial question of law to entertain a second appeal; however, findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court cannot be disturbed in second appeal. In the present case the first appellate court wrongly set aside the trial courts finding on the Will without meeting the trial courts reasons, and the High Court rightly restored the trial courts judgment; on independent examination the trial courts findings were supported by evidence, and the civil appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Second appeal
  • Framing of substantial question of law
  • Will
  • Suspicious circumstances
  • Reappreciation of evidence
  • Section 41 punjab courts act, 1918
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

R. KRSNA MURTII versus R. R. JAGADESAN

Because the appellant was admittedly the son of the deceased plaintiff and asserted entitlement under a registered Will, his application for substitution could not have been dismissed outright; if inquiries were necessary the trial court should have proceeded under Order XXII Rule 5 CPC. The impugned orders dismissing the application were set aside and the application was restored for reconsideration by the trial court in accordance with law.

Source excerpt

  • Substitution of legal representative
  • Power of attorney
  • Will
  • Order xxii, rule 5 cpc
  • Legal heirs
  • Testamentary and non-testamentary succession
Read case analysis
Hindu law

GOVINDBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL & ORS. versus PATEL RAMANBHAI MATHURBHAI

The appellants failed to prove the property was ancestral; in absence of intention in will, the property was self-acquired in the donor's hands. Without specific denial of execution, the gift deed registered under law did not require attesting witness to be examined. Fabrication was alleged but not proven. Donor was competent to execute gift deed. Findings of High Court were correct and require no interference.

Source excerpt

  • Self-acquired property
  • Gift deed
  • Ancestral property
  • Burden of proof
  • Attestation
  • Will
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.