Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court

Supreme Court Settles Family Property Dispute: Upholds 1984 Partition and Sale Deed, Overturns High Court’s Reliance on Alleged 1965 Partition"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court in its recent judgment addressed a complex family property dispute, focusing on the validity of the 1984 partition and the legality of a subsequent sale deed. The Court critically examined the earlier reliance on an alleged 1965 oral partition and its implications on the property rights among the family members.

The dispute revolved around the partition and entitlement to various properties within a family. The plaintiffs claimed a share in the properties, asserting an oral partition in 1965. The defendants, on the other hand, pointed to a 1984 partition that allegedly allocated the properties in question. The key issues involved the validity of these partitions and the legality of a sale deed executed by one of the defendants for a property allegedly part of the family assets.

On the Alleged 1965 Partition: The Supreme Court noted that reliance on the 1965 oral partition by the High Court was erroneous as it was not originally part of the plaintiffs' pleadings. An attempt to amend the plaint to include this partition was rejected, lending no basis for considering evidence related to the 1965 partition.

On the Validity of the 1984 Partition: The Court upheld the validity of the 1984 partition, noting that the properties in question were allotted to the branch of Raghvendrarao, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. This decision was reinforced by the absence of challenges to the 1984 partition in subsequent legal proceedings.

On the Sale of Property: The Supreme Court upheld the sale deed executed in 2001 concerning one of the disputed properties. It was found that the sale did not violate any interim order, as the seller was not a party to the suit when the interim order was passed.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's findings regarding the disputed properties. The properties were declared rightfully belonging to the appellants, and the 2001 sale deed was upheld.

Date of Decision: 4th March 2024

Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by LRs. Vs. V. Kumar Vamanrao @ Alok and Ors.

 

Latest Legal News