Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Partition Suit: Saroj Salkan vs. Huma Singh (2025)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XII Rule 6, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 6, Judges, Manmohan, Sanjay Karol

Date of the Judgment: May 06, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 632 Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., Manmohan, J. Can previous court decrees prevent a daughter from claiming her share in ancestral property after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Saroj Salkan […]

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Partition Suit: Saroj Salkan vs. Huma Singh (2025) Read Post »

Church Governance Dispute: Supreme Court Clarifies Synod Meeting Validity and Election Processes in CSI Case (2 May 2025)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 1 Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 92, Judges, Satish Chandra Sharma

Introduction Date of the Judgment: May 02, 2025 The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a complex legal battle concerning the management and administration of the Church of South India (CSI). This case revolves around disputes regarding the validity of Synod meetings, amendments to the CSI Constitution, and the election of key office bearers. The

Church Governance Dispute: Supreme Court Clarifies Synod Meeting Validity and Election Processes in CSI Case (2 May 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Order XI Rule 14 of CPC in property dispute: Srikanth NS vs. K. Munivenkatappa (2025)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XI Rule 14, Dipankar Datta, Judges, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 23, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 557 Judges: Dipankar Datta, J. and Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Can a court order the production of documents in a case where the suit has already been dismissed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning a long-standing property

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Order XI Rule 14 of CPC in property dispute: Srikanth NS vs. K. Munivenkatappa (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Decision in Property Dispute: Rajeev Gupta & Ors. vs. Prashant Garg & Ors. (23 April 2025)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Dipankar Datta, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 90A, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 59, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 65, Order 6 Rule 17, CPC, Order XXIII Rule 3, CPC, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 41, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 52

Date of the Judgment: 23 April 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 552 Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Can a family settlement be challenged by a third party? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a dispute over property rights. The core issue revolved around the validity of

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Decision in Property Dispute: Rajeev Gupta & Ors. vs. Prashant Garg & Ors. (23 April 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Ex-Parte Decree in Property Dispute: Kanchhu vs. Prakash Chand (2025)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order IX Rule 13, Dipankar Datta, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, Manmohan

Can a High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, set aside an ex-parte decree by re-evaluating the merits of the original case without considering the reasons for the defendant’s absence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a civil appeal arising from a property dispute. The court overturned a High Court decision

Supreme Court Upholds Ex-Parte Decree in Property Dispute: Kanchhu vs. Prakash Chand (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Rejection of Plaint in Property Dispute Cases Based on Agreement to Sell: Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs. B. Gunashekar (2025) INSC 490 (16 April 2025)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order VII Rule 11, J.B. Pardiwala, Judges, R. Mahadevan, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 53-A, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 54

Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 16, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 490 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan Can a suit for injunction be maintained based solely on an agreement to sell, especially against a third party in possession of the property? The Supreme Court of India addressed this

Supreme Court Clarifies Rejection of Plaint in Property Dispute Cases Based on Agreement to Sell: Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs. B. Gunashekar (2025) INSC 490 (16 April 2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order in property dispute: Rajendhiran vs. Muthaiammal (2025)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 68, Indian Succession Act, 1956, Indian Succession Act, 1956 with Section 63, Judges, Sandeep Mehta, Vikram Nath

Date of the Judgment: April 15, 2025 Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Sandeep Mehta, J. Can a High Court decision be overturned if it misinterprets evidence and disregards findings of lower courts? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case involving a property dispute. The court found that the High Court had

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order in property dispute: Rajendhiran vs. Muthaiammal (2025) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation Act in Property Dispute: R. Nagaraj (Dead) vs. Rajmani (2025)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, J. B. Pardiwala, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Article 59, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 3, R. Mahadevan

Date of the Judgment: April 09, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 478 Judges: Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan Can a delay of 17 years in challenging a property sale be excused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a property dispute case. The core issue revolved around the applicability of

Supreme Court Upholds Limitation Act in Property Dispute: R. Nagaraj (Dead) vs. Rajmani (2025) Read Post »

Scroll to Top