Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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