Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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