Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation

Supreme Court Upholds Family Settlement in Property Dispute, Affirms “Exclusive Ownership Rights Based on Substantial Evidence”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a decisive judgment, has settled a protracted property dispute, underscoring the legal sanctity of family settlements and evidentiary value in determining exclusive ownership rights. The ruling, delivered by Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, pertained to a contentious family feud over the ownership of ancestral properties located in Kamla Nagar and Malcha Marg, Delhi.

The key legal issue in this judgment revolved around the recognition and enforcement of family settlements and the exclusive ownership of joint family property. The court meticulously examined the nature of the two properties in question, differentiating between joint family assets and individually owned properties.

The dispute involved the descendants of Late Shri Tek Chand Khanna, with the appellants and respondents laying claim to the Kamla Nagar and Malcha Marg properties. While the Kamla Nagar property was originally joint family property, the Malcha Marg property was contested as being acquired solely by one branch of the family.

The court’s assessment provided a detailed analysis of the evidence presented. Regarding the Kamla Nagar property, the court found substantial evidence of a payment of Rs. 55,000 by the appellants for the respondent’s share, thus concluding that the property no longer remained joint family property. On the other hand, the court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the Malcha Marg property was exclusively owned by the respondents, as there was no evidence of it being acquired through joint family funds.

The Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s decision regarding the Kamla Nagar property, recognizing it as exclusively owned by the appellants. Conversely, the decision on the Malcha Marg property was upheld as per the High Court’s judgment, affirming it as the exclusive property of the respondents. The appeals on the Kamla Nagar property were allowed, while those on the Malcha Marg property were dismissed. Both parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Date of Decision: March 19, 2024.

“Jugal Kishore Khanna (D) Thr Lrs & Anr. Versus Sudhir Khanna & Ors.”,

Latest Legal News