Property Deeds and Criminal Liability : Supreme Court Analyses the Effect of Law
"Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents in relation to a settlement deed will always carry a civil element. Therefore, there cannot be any general proposition that whenever dispute involves a civil element, a criminal proceeding cannot go on. Criminal liability must be examined independently."
C.S. Prasad v. C. Satyakumar [2026] GCtR 60 (SC)
Law on Maintainability of Civil Suits : Supreme Court Highlights the Crucial Legal Position
Dealing with a case arising out of a civil suit, it is held that where there is a construction raised on the disputed property alleged to be owned by the plaintiffs, the appropriate and efficacious remedy was to institute a suit for possession along with a consequential relief of injunction, and not a suit for injunction simpliciter.
Sanjay Paliwal v. BHEL [2026] GCtR 41 (SC)
Property and Suits Related to Agreement for Sale : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Aspects
It has been held that "vendor is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale, notwithstanding that vendor has transferred his interest in the subject matter of the agreement to a third party. Reason being that the transferee/ third party cannot be subjected to special covenants, if any, between the vendor and the plaintiff-purchaser."
Kishorilal v. Gopal [2026] GCtR 37 (SC)
Supreme Court Explains Law on Unregistered documents
Hon'ble Supreme Court has given numerous judgments.
In K.B. Saha & Sons Pvt Ltd v Development Consultant Ltd [2008] GCtR 4223 (SC) it has been held thus : -
"1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under S.49 of Registration Act
2.Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the Proviso to S.49 of Registration Act, 1908.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the law required registration.4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in Immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose."
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.
Order 2 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Supreme Court Explains the Scope
It has been commented in Shiv Kumar Sharma v Santosh Kumari [2007] GCtR 1998 (SC) thus : -
"In terms of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code, all the reliefs which could be claimed in the suit should be prayed for. Order 2 Rule 3 provides for joinder of causes of action. Order 2 Rule 4 is an exception thereto. For joining causes of action in respect of matters covered by Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Order 2 Rule 4, no leave of the court is required to be taken. Even without taking leave of the court, a prayer in that behalf can be made. A suit for recovery of possession on declaration of one’s title and/or injunction and a suit for mesne profit or damages may involve different cause of action. For a suit for possession, there may be one cause of action; and for claiming a decree for mesne profit, there may be another. In terms of Order 2 Rule 4 of the Code, however, such causes of action can be joined and therefore no leave of the court is required to be taken. If no leave has been taken, a separate suit may or may not be maintainable but even a suit wherefore a prayer for grant of damages by way of mesne profit or otherwise is claimed, must be instituted within the prescribed period of limitation. Damages cannot be granted without payment of court fee. In a case where damages are required to be calculated, a fixed court fee is to be paid but on the quantum determined by the court and the balance court fee is to be paid when a final decree is to be prepared."
"If the respondent intended to claim damages and/or mesne profit, in view of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code itself, he could have done so, but he chose not to do so. For one reason or the other, he, therefore, had full knowledge about his right. Having omitted to make any claim for damages, in our opinion, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to get the same indirectly."
"A civil court does not grant leave to file another suit. If the law permits, the plaintiff may file another suit but not on the basis of observations made by a superior court."
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.
Holder of Joint Property : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Aspects
An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10 January 1966.
It has been commented in Gowli Buddanna v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Bangalore [1966] GCtR 3044 (SC) thus : -
"A Hindu joint family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor, and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the joint family: it includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property, these being the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of the holder of the joint property for the time being. Therefore there may be a joint Hindu family consisting of a single male member and widows of deceased coparceners."
Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link
https://main.sci.gov.in/daily-order
Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 10 January 1966.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.
Partition of the Properties : Supreme Court Expounds the Legal Effect
An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21 August 2009.
It has been commented in Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub Karan Prasad Bubna v Sita Saran Bubna [2009] GCtR 2961 (SC) thus : -
"“Partition” is a redistribution or adjustment of pre-existing rights, among co-owners/coparceners, resulting in a division of lands or other properties jointly held by them into different lots or portions and delivery thereof to the respective allottees. The effect of such division is that the joint ownership is terminated and the respective shares vest in them in severalty."
"A partition of a property can be only among those having a share or interest in it. A person who does not have a share in such property cannot obviously be a party to a partition. “Separation of share” is a species of “partition”. When all co owners get separated, it is a partition. Separation of share(s) refers to a division where only one or only a few among several co-owners/coparceners get separated, and others continue to be joint or continue to hold the remaining property jointly without division by metes and bounds. For example, where four brothers owning a property divide it among themselves by metes and bounds, it is a partition. But if only one brother wants to get his share separated and other three brothers continue to remain joint, there is only a separation of the share of one brother."
"As the declaration of rights or shares is only the first stage in a suit for partition, a preliminary decree does not have the effect of disposing of the suit. The suit continues to be pending until partition, that is, division by metes and bounds takes place by passing a final decree. An application requesting the Court to take necessary steps to draw up a final decree effecting a division in terms of the preliminary decree, is neither an application for execution (falling under Article 136 of the Limitation Act) nor an application seeking a fresh relief (falling under Article 137 of the Limitation Act). It is only a reminder to the Court to do its duty to appoint a Commissioner, get a report, and draw a final decree in the pending suit so that the suit is taken to its logical conclusion."
"On the other hand, in a partition suit the preliminary decrees only decide a part of the suit and therefore an application for passing a final decree is only an application in a pending suit, seeking further progress. In partition suits, there can be a preliminary decree followed by a final decree, or there can be a decree which is a combination of preliminary decree and final decree or there can be merely a single decree with certain further steps to be taken by the Court. In fact, several applications for final decree are permissible in a partition suit. A decree in a partition suit enures to the benefit of all the co-owners and therefore, it is sometimes said that there is really no judgment-debtor in a partition decree."
Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments
Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 21 August 2009.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.
Properties of Hindus and Legal Issues : Supreme Court Explains the Law
An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8 February 1968.
It has been commented at page 5 of Puttarangamma v M.S. Ranganna [1968] GCtR 2960 (SC) thus : -
"It is now a settled doctrine of Hindu Law that a member of a joint Hindu family can bring about his separation in status by a definite, unequivocal and unilateral declaration of his intention to separate himself from the family and enjoy his share in severalty. There does not need to be an agreement between all the coparceners for the disruption of the joint status. It is immaterial in such a case whether the other coparceners give their assent to the separation or not. The jural basis of this doctrine has been expounded by the early writers of Hindu Law."
Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments
Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 8 February 1968.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.
Property and Family Settlements : Supreme Court Explains the Law
An important Judgment was passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21 January 1976.
In context of family settlements and immovable properties, it has been commented in Kale & Ors v Deputy Director of Consolidation [1976] GCtR 2959 (SC) thus : -
"To put the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced into the form of the following propositions:
“(1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family;
(2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence;
(3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary;
(4) It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable;
(5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same;
(6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement.”
Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments
Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 21 January 1976.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.
Property and Law : Supreme Court Clarified the Position
It has been held in Clarence Pais v Union of India [2001] GCtR 2847 (SC) that "a combined reading of Sections 213 and 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 would show that where the parties to the will are Hindus or the properties in dispute are not in territories falling under Section 57(a) and (b), sub-section (2) of Section 213 of the Act applies and sub-section (1) has no application. As a consequence, a probate will not be required to be obtained by a Hindu in respect of a will made outside those territories or regarding the immovable properties situate outside those territories."
Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments
Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 22 February 2001.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.
Property and Legal Issues : An Important View of Supreme Court
It has been commented at Ravinder Kaur Grewal v Manjit Kaur [2019] GCtR 2206 (SC) thus : -
"The adverse possessor does not derive his title from the former owner, but from a new source of title, his possession. The “investitive fact” is the disseisin and exercise of possession as observed in Camp v. Camp [Camp v. Camp, 5 Conn 291 (1824)] ; Price v. Lyon [Price v. Lyon, 14 Conn 279, 290 (1841)] and Coal Creek Consol. Coal Co. v. East Tennessee Iron & Coal Co. [Coal Creek Consol. Coal Co. v. East Tennessee Iron & Coal Co., 105 Tenn 563 : 59 SW 634, 636 (1900)]".
"Possession is the root of title and is right like the property. As ownership is also of different kinds of viz. sole ownership, contingent ownership, corporeal ownership, and legal equitable ownership. Limited ownership or limited right to property may be enjoyed by a holder."
"The possession as trespasser is not adverse nor long possession is synonym with adverse possession."
"The operation of the statute of limitation in giving a title is merely negative; it extinguishes the right and title of the dispossessed owner and leaves the occupant with a title gained by the fact of possession and resting on the infirmity of the right of others to eject him."
"A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed."
"Tacking is based on the fulfilment of certain conditions, tacking may be by possession by the purchaser, legatee or assignee, etc. so as to constitute continuity of possession, that person must be claiming through whom it is sought to be tacked, and would depend on the identity of the same property under the same right. Two distinct trespassers cannot tack their possession to constitute conferral of right by adverse possession for the prescribed period."
"The adverse possession requires all the three classic requirements to co-exist at the same time, namely, nec vi i.e. adequate in continuity, nec clam i.e. adequate in publicity and nec precario i.e. adverse to a competitor, in denial of title and his knowledge. Visible, notorious and peaceful so that if the owner does not take care to know notorious facts, knowledge is attributed to him on the basis that but for due diligence he would have known it. Adverse possession cannot be decreed on a title which is not pleaded. Animus possidendi under hostile colour of title is required."
"Adverse possession is heritable and there can be tacking of adverse possession by two or more persons as the right is transmissible one."
Privy Council in Perry v. Clissold [Perry v. Clissold, 1907 AC 73 (PC)]: (AC p. 79) said : "It cannot be disputed that a person in possession of land in the assumed character of owner and exercising peaceably the ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good title against all the world but the rightful owner. And if the rightful owner does not come forward and assert his title by the process of law within the period prescribed by the provisions of the Statute of Limitations applicable to the case, his right is forever extinguished, and the possessory owner acquires an absolute title.‟
Property & Legal Issues : An Important View of Supreme Court
An important Judgment has been passed on 17 January 1990 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In context of property related legal issues, it has been commented at page 6 of Chinnammal v P. Arumugham [1990] GCtR 2798 (SC) thus : -
"Person who purchases the property in court auction with the knowledge of the pending appeal against the decree cannot resist restitution."
"Auction purchaser who was a name lender to the decree holder or who has colluded with the decree holder to purchase the property could not also protected to retain the property if the decree is subsequently reversed."
One can also refer Rodger v. The Comptoir D’ Escompte De Paris, [1869-71] LR 3 P.C. 465.
Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost (without any charges except internet data) from the official website at the link
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments
Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 17 July 1990.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.
Property : An Important Legal Issue
An important Judgment has been pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27 August 2007.
In context of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, it has been commented at pages 17 and 18 of Girnar Traders v State of Maharashtra [2007] GCtR 2761 (SC) thus : -
"If the acquisition is left for time immemorial in the hands of the authority concerned by simply making an application to the State Government for acquiring such land under the LA Act, 1894, then the authority will simply move such an application and if no such notification is issued by the State Government for one year of the publication of the draft regional plan under Section 126 (2) read with Section 6 of the LA Act, wait for the notification to be issued by the State Government by exercising suo motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 126; and till then no declaration could be made under Section 127 as regards lapsing of reservation and contemplated declaration of land being released and available for the landowner for his utilisation as permitted under Section 127. Section 127 permitted inaction on the part of the acquisition authorities for a period of 10 years for dereservation of the land. Not only that, it gives a further time for either to acquire the land or to take steps for acquisition of the land within a period of six months from the date of service of notice by the landowner for dereservation. The steps towards commencement of the acquisition in such a situation would necessarily be the steps for acquisition and not a step which may not result into acquisition and merely for the purpose of seeking time so that Section 127 does not come into operation."
"The underlying principle envisaged in Section 127 of the MRTP Act is either to utilise the land for the purpose it is reserved in the plan in a given time or let the owner utilise the land for the purpose it is permissible under the town planning scheme. The step taken under the section within the time stipulated should be towards acquisition of land. It is a step of acquisition of land and not step for acquisition of land. It is trite that failure of authorities to take steps which result in actual commencement of acquisition of land cannot be permitted to defeat the purpose and object of the scheme of acquisition under the MRTP Act by merely moving an application requesting the Government to acquire the land, which Government may or may not accept. Any step which may or may not culminate in the step for acquisition cannot be said to be a step towards acquisition."
Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost from the official website at the link https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments - Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 27 August 2007.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.
A Case For Property : A Recent View of Supreme Court of Feb 2023
There have been many interesting decisions passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2023.
Let us go through the recent case citation [2023] GCtR 536 (SC) where the relatives of the property seller lost the litigation.
A case related to property was filed. The person who sold the property had died. The death of seller of property occurred after the property sale transaction. The seller's relatives initiated litigation regarding the property. The buyer became the opposite party. The relatives of the seller of property had, in the litigation, questioned the rights of the property buyer.
It was ultimately found that the property sale transaction was valid and the litigation initiated by the relatives of the seller of the property was found not to have substance.
What [2023] GCtR 536 (SC) indicates is that in certain situations related to property litigation, there may be no need to issue notice to the opposite party and the case can be dismissed without notice to the opposite party.
Kindly note that full text Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court can be downloaded absolutely free of cost from the official website at the link https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments - Then entering the date of Judgment, for example, as 14 July 2020.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.
Scope of Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Answered in a recent Judgment passed in July 2026 S.9 of Arbitration and Concil...