{"id":362905,"date":"2025-10-08T09:00:51","date_gmt":"2025-10-08T03:30:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=362905"},"modified":"2025-10-13T10:07:07","modified_gmt":"2025-10-13T04:37:07","slug":"bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay HC dismisses appeal in property dispute between brothers over alleged fraudulent gift deed"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In the present appeal, where the appellant and respondent – real brothers – were in a dispute over a jointly purchased house property, which was later transferred solely to the appellant through a gift deed, the respondent had alleged the transfer was fraudulent and filed a suit seeking partition and possession. A Single Judge Bench of Shailesh P. Brahme<\/span>, J., while dismissing the appeal, held that the purport of the plaint was that by playing fraud, the suit property was transferred in favour of the appellant. The Court noted that even the respondent was not aware that it was a gift deed, as it was executed by misrepresentation and later fraud was found to have been played by the appellant.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

The appellant and respondent jointly purchased a house property located at Tilak Peth, Aurangabad, through a sale deed dated 10-06-2008. The appellant expressed a desire to obtain financial assistance using the suit property, which was jointly owned. He requested the respondent to transfer the property nominally into his name. Trusting the relationship, the respondent agreed, and a registered conveyance deed was executed on 02-12-2014. Later, a correction deed was executed on 05-08-2015 to rectify the area mentioned in the original document.<\/p>\n

On 10-11-2017, both parties executed a memorandum of understanding, wherein the appellant assured that the property would be re-transferred to the respondent. However, it was later discovered that no loan had been taken, and the registered instrument was allegedly obtained fraudulently. The appellant avoided re-transferring the property, and the document dated 02-12-2014 was revealed to be a gift deed. On 28-03-2019, the appellant denied the respondent’s title and ownership, prompting the respondent to file a Special Civil Suit seeking partition, possession, and injunction.<\/p>\n

In response, the appellant contended that the gift deed was consciously executed and registered by the respondent. He denied any intention to raise a loan and claimed that the transfer was done with the respondent’s full knowledge. The appellant also denied the memorandum of understanding and argued that the suit was barred by limitation, lacked cause of action, and was not maintainable without challenging the gift deed.<\/p>\n

The appellant argued that the lower Appellate Court erred in allowing the appeal, as the respondent had not challenged the gift deed and had only sought relief of partition and possession. It was submitted that without a preexisting right, partition relief could not be granted, and the suit was not tenable. The appellant claimed the suit was vexatious and cleverly drafted to create an illusion of cause of action, and that it was time-barred since the gift deed was executed on 02-12-2014 and the suit was filed on 04-04-2019.<\/p>\n

The respondent argued that the gift deed was void and did not require a separate challenge. The memorandum of understanding supported the claim that the gift deed was nominal. He maintained that the lower Appellate Court had reasonably interpreted the plaint and that a full trial was necessary to determine the suit’s tenability and limitation. He also clarified that the suit was not for partition of joint family or ancestral property.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court examined that the suit property was purchased jointly on 10-06-2008 and observed that it was not a joint family or ancestral property, but a property of co-ownership. The Court noted that there was no quarrel with the propositions that if no cause of action was made out or the suit was found to be barred by law, it was permissible to reject the plaint. However, if the plaint was found to be vexatious, having no cause of action or if by clever drafting the cause of action appeared to have been created, that would be a ground to reject the plaint.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasised that a meaningful reading of the plaint disclosed that there was a cause of action, as it was arguable that an educated person had executed a document which was registered and then claimed ignorance of the nature of the transfer, which could not be fathomed. The Court observed that it was not permissible to arrive at any conclusion at that juncture of the proceedings, and the case of the respondent that the appellant was his elder brother, had misrepresented facts, and later assured to re-transfer the property could not be ruled out at that stage. Therefore, the fact that registered instruments were executed on two occasions could not dislodge the probable theory of the respondent-plaintiff.<\/p>\n

The Court emphasised that it was pertinent to note that the respondent had set up a theory of fraud and mala fides, and these peculiar pleadings, if proved during trial, would vitiate the transaction between the parties and the instrument dated 02-12-2014. The Court observed that the transaction needed to be examined in the wake of Section 121<\/a> of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882<\/a>, where the claim was that it was void ab initio. Therefore, the Court found substance in the submission that the respondent was not required to solicit relief of declaration in respect of the gift deed.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the respondent might or might not succeed in the suit and ultimately his suit might be found to be not tenable for want of relief of declaration, but that could not be a parameter to reject the plaint. The Court further observed that the arguable and attractive submissions for maintainability of the suit would not come within the sweep of Order VII Rule 11(a) or (d)<\/a> of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a>, (‘CPC’), since no specific provision was pointed out by the appellant to show that the suit was statutorily barred or there was a prohibition to entertain the suit. The Court held that the parties would have to wait until objective scrutiny was conducted in a full-fledged trial.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that the purport of the plaint was that by playing fraud, the suit property was transferred in favour of the appellant and by considering Article 59<\/a> of the Limitation Act, 1963<\/a>, it could not be said that the limitation would commence immediately when the gift deed was executed on 02-12-2014. Going by the plaint on that date, the Court noted that even the respondent was not aware that it was a gift deed, as it was executed by misrepresentation and later fraud was found to have been played by the appellant. Therefore, the Court was of the considered view that the plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d)<\/a> CPC<\/a> on the plea of limitation.<\/p>\n

The Court, thus, independently scrutinised the matter rather than relying solely on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench. In the absence of the plaint and relevant documents the Court examined the merits of the case afresh. Upon such examination, the Court found no perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree. Therefore, the appeal from order was dismissed and the pending civil application was disposed of.<\/p>\n

[Deelipkumar Sagarmal Saboo v. Ramavtar Sagarmal Saboo, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3605<\/a>, decided on 04-10-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Appellants:<\/span> Anil S. Bajaj<\/p>\n

For the Respondents:<\/span> Anand P. Bhandari<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“It was arguable that an educated person had executed a document which was registered and then claimed ignorance of the nature of the transfer, which could not be fathomed.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":362914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[34779,2569,10141,32258,4611,3441,75385,90482,31483,22434,31853,90483,90484,90481],"class_list":["post-362905","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-ancestral-property","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-fraud","tag-gift-deed","tag-hindu-undivided-family","tag-joint_property","tag-justice-shailesh-p-brahme","tag-limitation-bar","tag-misrepresentation","tag-order-vii-rule-11-cpc","tag-partition","tag-section-121-transfer-of-property-act","tag-suit-maintainability","tag-transferred-property"],"yoast_head":"\nBombay HC: Brothers' property dispute appeal dismissed| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Brothers' property dispute appeal dismissed as Bombay High Court, holds that allegations of fraud in the gift deed require full trial to determine ownership and limitation.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay HC dismisses appeal in property dispute between brothers over alleged fraudulent gift deed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Brothers' property dispute appeal dismissed as Bombay High Court, holds that allegations of fraud in the gift deed require full trial to determine ownership and limitation.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-10-08T03:30:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-13T04:37:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Bombay HC dismisses appeal in property dispute between brothers over alleged fraudulent gift deed\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/\",\"name\":\"Bombay HC: Brothers' property dispute appeal dismissed| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-08T03:30:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-13T04:37:07+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Brothers' property dispute appeal dismissed as Bombay High Court, holds that allegations of fraud in the gift deed require full trial to determine ownership and limitation.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"brothers property dispute appeal dismissed\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay HC dismisses appeal in property dispute between brothers over alleged fraudulent gift deed\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bombay HC: Brothers' property dispute appeal dismissed| SCC Times","description":"Brothers' property dispute appeal dismissed as Bombay High Court, holds that allegations of fraud in the gift deed require full trial to determine ownership and limitation.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay HC dismisses appeal in property dispute between brothers over alleged fraudulent gift deed","og_description":"Brothers' property dispute appeal dismissed as Bombay High Court, holds that allegations of fraud in the gift deed require full trial to determine ownership and limitation.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-10-08T03:30:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-10-13T04:37:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Bombay HC dismisses appeal in property dispute between brothers over alleged fraudulent gift deed","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/","name":"Bombay HC: Brothers' property dispute appeal dismissed| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed.webp","datePublished":"2025-10-08T03:30:51+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-13T04:37:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Brothers' property dispute appeal dismissed as Bombay High Court, holds that allegations of fraud in the gift deed require full trial to determine ownership and limitation.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"brothers property dispute appeal dismissed"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/08\/bom-hc-brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay HC dismisses appeal in property dispute between brothers over alleged fraudulent gift deed"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/brothers-property-dispute-appeal-dismissed.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":346505,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/04\/26\/bombay-hc-rejects-second-appeal-of-brother-claiming-right-property-gifted-father-to-other-son\/","url_meta":{"origin":362905,"position":0},"title":"\u2018Constructive possession enough for gift transaction\u2019; Bombay HC rejects second appeal of brother claiming right to property gifted by father to the other son","author":"Editor","date":"April 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhen the donor and donee, who are father and son, are residing together in residential house owned by the father, it is not expected that after gifting the property by way of Hiba, the father would leave the residence.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":216613,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/07\/08\/cal-hc-registration-of-gift-deed-after-death-of-the-donor-at-the-instance-of-donee-does-not-offend-s-123-of-transfer-of-property-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":362905,"position":1},"title":"Cal HC | Registration of gift deed after death of the donor, at the instance of donee, does not offend S. 123 of Transfer of Property Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court: Bibek Chaudhuri J. allowed an appeal challenging the judgment whereby a gift deed was held as void and donee of the deed were restrained from claiming the title in the gifted property. Respondents herein were the plaintiffs in a suit filed for setting aside of a gift\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":204507,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/29\/party-within-his-rights-to-cancel-a-conditional-transfer-deed-executed-for-consideration-before-completion-of-condition-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":362905,"position":2},"title":"Party within his rights to cancel a conditional transfer deed executed for consideration before completion of condition: SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 29, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee, JJ. allowed an appeal while setting aside the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court concerning a \u2018gift deed\u2019. In the present case, the facts of the case are that the appellant executed a purported gift deed in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":262437,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/25\/balance-of-convenience-and-irreparable-loss-to-be-proved-in-order-to-seek-ex-parte-ad-interim-injunction\/","url_meta":{"origin":362905,"position":3},"title":"Utt HC | Balance of convenience and irreparable loss to be proved in order to seek ex-parte ad-interim-injunction","author":"Editor","date":"February 25, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttaranchal High Court: Ravindra Maithani, J. dismissed an appeal that challenged an order given by the court of Civil Judge pertaining to cancellation of gift deed. Appellant was aggrieved by that part of order by which an ad-interim injunction was not granted. He had purchased an agricultural property in the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":6414,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/08\/25\/gift-deed-transferring-the-corpus-to-the-donee-gives-no-right-of-claim-to-donor-s-legal-heirs\/","url_meta":{"origin":362905,"position":4},"title":"Gift deed transferring the corpus to the donee gives no right of claim to donor\u2019s legal heirs","author":"Sucheta","date":"August 25, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the instant case the question arose that whether transfer of the gifted property was a transfer of the corpus or mere transfer of usufruct. In the instant case the appellant was transferred the property whose previous owner (deceased) had received it as gift\/Hiba through a gift deed.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Supreme Court"","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":255534,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/13\/registration-of-document-by-public-officer-while-discharging-public-duty\/","url_meta":{"origin":362905,"position":5},"title":"Law on Fraud | Registration of document by public officer while discharging public duty: A Fraudulent activity? AP HC decides","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 13, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Andhra Pradesh High Court: M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J., expressed that, \u201cIf a party to the document wants to annul the document, he has to file a suit under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act before the competent Civil Court and if, third party wants to annul the document, he\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Andhra-Pradesh-High-Court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362905","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=362905"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362905\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/362914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=362905"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=362905"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=362905"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}