Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The Courts below have rightly invoked Section 48 TPA to hold that the transfer prior in time shall have an overriding effect over the transfer which is later in time.”
The Allahabad High Court clarified that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not curtail the State’s power to acquire religious properties for a public purpose, including road widening and infrastructure development.
Better possessory title prevails over mere occupation: Delhi High Court dismisses second appeal in JJ Colony property dispute
Deciding a second appeal arising from a long-standing dispute over a JJ Colony property, the Court upheld a decree for possession in favour of the respondent, observing that while the respondent successfully traced her rights to the original allottee through documentary evidence, the appellant failed to substantiate her competing claim with any credible material.
A man who had owned land since childhood under a 1960 deed was nearly stripped of his entire property through a doctrine designed to prevent re-litigation, the Supreme Court stepped in, holding that constructive res judicata cannot be used to produce harsh or inequitable consequences.
“A party cannot be permitted to ‘blow hot-blow cold’, ‘fast and loose’ or ‘approbate and reprobate’. Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself.”
“This is a long drawn legal battle between brother and sisters. Although in the past the parties did try to reach to an amicable settlement, yet we are informed that the settlement failed.”
The grievance of the plaintiff arose from the manufacture, sale, promotion, and distribution of merchandise such as T-shirts, posters, mugs, keychains, and other products bearing his name, photographs, likeness, and persona, without authorisation.
The Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law Journal (DSNLJ) is a student-edited, peer-reviewed annual law journal published by the Society for Paper Publications, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University.
In S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram, (2010) 5 SCC 401, the Supreme Court had held that an unregistered document may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit seeking specific performance.
The Court also affirmed interpretation of Rule 6 by Delhi High Court in ITDC Limited v. Chander Pal Sood, wherein the High Court had held that Rule 6 gives a wide discretion to the Court.
“No provision under the 1908 Act confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document on the ground that the documents regarding the title of the vendor are not produced, or if his title is not established”.
The Supreme Court’s 2024 decisions have marked a significant turning point in the country’s legal and constitutional framework. Key rulings delivered by Constitutional Benches on Electoral bonds, private property, royalty as tax, AMU’s minority status, sub-classification within reserved categories, etc. have left an impact on fundamental rights, political transparency and tax regime, shaping India’s socio-political landscape, influencing both public policy and the broader democratic process.
by Tamarra Sequeira*, Amruthavarshini**, Aditya Sethi*** and Nandita Mathihalli****
Order XXI Rule 99, CPC is lucid that where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on use and enjoyment of property.
ABOUT “REMEMBERING S P SATHE” Professor Satyaranjan Purushottam Sathe was a distinguished legal luminary and a renowned academician in the judicial universe
In Ram Rattan v. State of U.P., (1977) 1 SCC 188, the 3-judges Bench comprising S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, P.N. Bhagwati, and V.R. Krishnaiyer, JJ., delved into the scope of a trespasser to exercise the right of private defence of property and person.
The observation came in a case where the Supreme Court had to deny, a woman belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the right of survivorship in her father’s property as Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act specifically excludes the female members of the Scheduled Tribe.
“The continued presence of an unconstitutional law on the statute book, or the claim that such law was not challenged before Constitutional
“The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law, cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the statute”