Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Order on Property Dispute, Averts Demolition of Constructed Buildings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling delivered on November 6, 2023, the Supreme Court has modified the judgment of the High Court which had earlier directed the demolition of certain constructions on a disputed property. The apex court’s bench, comprising justices VIKRAM NATH and RAJESH BINDAL, intervened in the civil appeal filed against the High Court’s decision that modified the original decree by the Trial Court.

The Supreme Court observed that, “demolition of the already constructed buildings may not be in the interest of any of the parties,” indicating a move towards a more considered approach in dealing with the partition and use of the property involved. This comes after a preliminary decree was passed by the Trial Court in a suit filed for the declaration, partition, and separate possession of family property, which went unchallenged by the family members concerned, but faced contention from an appellant claiming rights through a co-sharer.

The bench underscored the importance of the final decree for partition by metes and bounds, stating, “We have no doubt that in the process of passing final decree for partition of the property by metes and bounds, the court below will consider all aspects in terms of settled principles of law for that purpose.”

The Supreme Court has directed the Trial Court to expedite the process for passing the final decree, emphasizing the age of the case and the need for a resolution. The justices have also made it clear that they have “not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy,” leaving the determination of the legality of the constructions and the final partition to the lower court.

This ruling is poised to set a precedent in how property disputes involving significant construction and investment are approached, particularly when the rights of non-family members who claim through co-sharers come into contention.

Date of Decision: November 06, 2023

M/s MULTICON BUILDERS VS SUMANDEVI AND OTHERS       

Latest Legal News