Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

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.

Similar News