MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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