TRAI Issuing Directions To Enforce Regulations Is Not 'Adjudication' Of Dispute, Does Not Usurp TDSAT's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Candidate Can Challenge Selection Process After Participating If Arbitrariness Is Writ Large Or Rules Changed Mid-Way: Supreme Court Selection Committee Cannot Superimpose Additional Cut-Off Marks Not Prescribed In Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Must Ordinarily Approach High Court First For Quashing FIRs, Article 32 Is For Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Club Multiple FIRs In Cyber Fraud Case, Says Similar Modus Operandi Does Not Constitute 'Same Transaction' Layman Borrowers Not Liable For Forgery If Even Bank's Legal Experts Failed To Detect Fabrication In Title Deeds: Allahabad High Court Kerala High Court Orders Travancore Devaswom Board To Digitise Sabarimala Asset Inventory, Says Current Records Resemble 'Betel Shop' Ledger Second Husband In Void Marriage Cannot Be Prosecuted For Dowry Death Under Section 80 BNS: Allahabad High Court Cohabitation Of Barely 3 Months Insufficient To Trigger Presumption Of Live-In Relationship For Maintenance: Bombay High Court SC/ST Act Case Filed By Suspended Head Constable To 'Wreck Vengeance' Against Investigating Officers Quashed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Non-Compliance With Order For Production Of Documents Under O.11 R.14 CPC Cannot Warrant Striking Off Defence: Calcutta High Court Omission To Put Dying Declaration To Accused Under Section 313 CrPC Makes It Inadmissible, But Doesn't Demolish Entire Prosecution Case: Delhi High Court Victim's Appeal Against Magistrate's Acquittal Order Lies Before Sessions Court Under Section 413 BNSS: Gujarat High Court 'Fraud And Justice Cannot Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Quashes 30-Year-Old Land Acquisition After Records Of Compensation Go Missing Electricity Authorities Cannot Determine Civil Liability For Energy Theft Under Section 135; Only Special Court Empowered: Madhya Pradesh High Court State Cannot Exploit Employees By Keeping Them On Part-Time Basis For Decades To Deny Old Pension Scheme: Punjab & Haryana HC

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