MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Decrees ‘Rs. 55,000 Settlement’ Sufficient for Exclusive Ownership in Kamla Nagar Property Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court, in a  judgment, set aside the High Court's decision regarding the Kamla Nagar property and upheld the Trial Court's judgment, effectively declaring the appellants as the exclusive owners.

The core of this legal battle revolves around two properties: the Kamla Nagar and Malcha Marg properties, inherited from the family patriarch, Late Shri Tek Chand Khanna (TCK). The dispute emerged between descendants of TCK's sons, RKK and ACK, over the ownership and status of these properties.

In 1979, a family settlement allegedly occurred, where the appellants (descendants of RKK) paid Rs. 55,000 to ACK's legal heirs for his share in the Kamla Nagar property. The Trial Court, in 2008, recognized this settlement and ruled in favor of the appellants. However, this was overturned by the High Court in 2013, leading to the current appeal in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the evidence, especially focusing on the transaction of Rs. 55,000, which was crucial for determining the ownership of the Kamla Nagar property. The court noted that there was no plausible explanation for this payment other than it being for the settlement. Further, it highlighted that ACK never claimed a share in the property during his lifetime, nor did his legal heirs claim rent from tenants of the property, indicating an acknowledgment of the appellants' exclusive ownership.

Regarding the Malcha Marg property, the Supreme Court concurred with the lower courts that it belonged exclusively to ACK's legal heirs, as there was no evidence to suggest it was purchased with joint family funds.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Kamla Nagar property is the exclusive property of the appellants, reinstating the Trial Court's decision. The judgment related to the Malcha Marg property remained upheld as per the High Court's decision. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 1591 of 2020 was allowed, and Civil Appeal No. 1592 of 2020 was dismissed.

 Date of Decision: March 19, 2024

Jugal Kishore Khanna(D) Thr Lrs & Anr. vs. Sudhir Khanna & Ors.

Latest Legal News