Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation

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

  • by sayum
    01 May 2026 8:18 AM
High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation
  • by sayum
    01 May 2026 8:15 AM
Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    01 May 2026 7:15 AM
Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    01 May 2026 7:14 AM
Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court
  • by sayum
    01 May 2026 7:14 AM
Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    01 May 2026 7:14 AM
General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court