Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Supreme Court Overrules Restrictions on Videoconferencing in Matrimonial Disputes: Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh (2017) INSC 847 (9 October 2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 25, D.Y. Chandrachud, Dipak Misra, Family Courts Act, 1984, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 11, Family Courts Act, 1984 with Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 22, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with Section 23(2), Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether videoconferencing can be used in matrimonial disputes under the Family Courts Act, 1984. CASE TYPE: Matrimonial Law. Case Name: Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh. Judgment Date: 9 October 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 9 October 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 847 Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J. (Majority Opinion), Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, […]

Supreme Court Overrules Restrictions on Videoconferencing in Matrimonial Disputes: Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh (2017) INSC 847 (9 October 2017) Read Post »

Impleading Legal Representatives: Supreme Court Clarifies Order 1 Rule 10 CPC Applicability in Cases of Pre-Suit Death (2017)

/ Arun Mishra, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 22 Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 151, Judges, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 21, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 879 Judges: Arun Mishra, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. Can a suit against a dead person be rectified by adding their legal heirs later? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning a property dispute where one of the

Impleading Legal Representatives: Supreme Court Clarifies Order 1 Rule 10 CPC Applicability in Cases of Pre-Suit Death (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Escheat Cases: Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust vs. Collector, Haridwar (22 September 2017)

/ Administrator General, Administrators-General Act, 1963, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 9, D.Y. Chandrachud, Escheat, Estate Administration, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 with Section 29, Intestate Succession, Judges, Jurisdiction of Civil Courts, N.V. Ramana

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Collector has the jurisdiction to decide on the vesting of property in the government under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, when a dispute of title exists. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute, Hindu Succession Act. Case Name: Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Thr.

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction in Escheat Cases: Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust vs. Collector, Haridwar (22 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Settles Property Dispute Through Compromise: Thuluva Vellalar Sangam vs. R. Manthrasalam (20 September 2017)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXI, Judges, Kurian Joseph, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Property dispute resolution through compromise. CASE TYPE: Civil. Case Name: Thuluva Vellalar Sangam vs. R. Manthrasalam & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 20 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2017 Citation: [Not Available in the source] Judges: Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R. Banumathi. Can a long-standing property dispute be resolved amicably, even

Supreme Court Settles Property Dispute Through Compromise: Thuluva Vellalar Sangam vs. R. Manthrasalam (20 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Wakf Board’s Ownership, Dismisses Adverse Possession Claim: Dharampal vs. Punjab Wakf Board (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Adverse Possession, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 8 Rule 6A(4), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 9 Rule 9, Judges, Property Law, R.K. Agrawal, Wakf Act, 1954, Wakf Act, 1954 with Section 55-C, Wakf Act, 1954 with Section 6, Wakf Property

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a claim of adverse possession can be used to claim ownership of Wakf property and whether a civil suit is barred by Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 if a previous suit on the same matter was dismissed for default. CASE TYPE: Property Law, Wakf Law Case

Supreme Court Upholds Wakf Board’s Ownership, Dismisses Adverse Possession Claim: Dharampal vs. Punjab Wakf Board (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Suit Claiming Ownership of Ancient Temple: State of Uttarakhand vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Adverse Possession, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 80, Judges, Property Law, R.K. Agrawal

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a private individual can claim ownership of a heritage temple and surrounding land based on adverse possession without proper pleadings and evidence. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute Case Name: State of Uttarakhand & Anr. vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj Judgment Date: September 12, 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Dismisses Suit Claiming Ownership of Ancient Temple: State of Uttarakhand vs. Mandir Sri Laxman Sidh Maharaj (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies remedy against Lok Adalat awards: Bhargavi Constructions vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 7 Rule 11(d), Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 141, Judges, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 with Section 21, Order 7 Rule 11(d), R.K. Agrawal, Writ Jurisdiction

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge an award passed by the Lok Adalat or if the only remedy is a writ petition. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: Bhargavi Constructions & Anr. vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy & Ors. [Judgment Date]: September 7, 2017 Date of the Judgment: September 7, 2017 Citation: (2017)

Supreme Court clarifies remedy against Lok Adalat awards: Bhargavi Constructions vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court bars second suit for mesne profits after earlier claim relinquished: Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property (2017)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order II Rule 2, Judges, Mesne Profits, Order II Rule 2, Property Law, R. Banumathi, R.K. Agrawal

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a second suit for mesne profits is maintainable after the claim for it was relinquished in an earlier suit for possession. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute Case Name: M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Ganesh Property Judgment Date: 5 September 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 5 September

Supreme Court bars second suit for mesne profits after earlier claim relinquished: Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC to Societies in property disputes: S.N.D.P. Sakhayogam vs. Kerala Atmavidya Sangham (2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Judges, Juristic Person, Maintainability of Suit, Order 1 Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, R.K. Agrawal, Representative Capacity, Representative Suit, Society Law

Can a Society file a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding ownership of land? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case between S.N.D.P. Sakhayogam and Kerala Atmavidya Sangham. This case revolves around a property dispute and whether a society can represent a

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC to Societies in property disputes: S.N.D.P. Sakhayogam vs. Kerala Atmavidya Sangham (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Section 80 CPC Notice Requirement in Property Dispute: Sant Prasad vs. Kausla Nand Sinha (2017)

/ Civil Law, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 80, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Property Disputes, R. Banumathi

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is mandatory before instituting a suit against the government. CASE TYPE: Civil Property Dispute Case Name: Sant Prasad vs. Kausla Nand Sinha & Ors. [Judgment Date]: September 01, 2017 Date of the Judgment: September 01, 2017 Citation: Not available

Supreme Court clarifies Section 80 CPC Notice Requirement in Property Dispute: Sant Prasad vs. Kausla Nand Sinha (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order for Lack of Reasoning in Property Partition Case (23 August 2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Appellate Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 41 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 41 Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, Reasoned Judgment, Second Appeal

Can a High Court dismiss a second appeal without stating reasons? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a property partition dispute. The Court emphasized the importance of reasoned judgments, particularly in appellate cases. This case highlights the necessity for High Courts to provide clear explanations when dismissing appeals.

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order for Lack of Reasoning in Property Partition Case (23 August 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Landlord’s Title: Tenant Estopped from Denying Ownership in Eviction Case (03 July 2017)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 8 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 8 Rule 5, Eviction, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 116, J. Chelameswar, Judges, Landlord-Tenant Law, Property Law, Property Law with Section 116, S. Abdul Nazeer

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tenant can dispute the landlord’s title during the continuation of tenancy, especially after initially acknowledging it. CASE TYPE: Eviction Law/Property Law Case Name: Jaspal Kaur Cheema and Anr. vs. M/S Industrial Trade Links and Ors. Judgment Date: 03 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 03 July 2017 Citation: [Not Available in

Supreme Court Upholds Landlord’s Title: Tenant Estopped from Denying Ownership in Eviction Case (03 July 2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top