Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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