Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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