Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Transfer of Property Act, 1882

332 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–332.

SHANKARLAL NADANIversusSOHANLAL JAIN

2022 INSC 42012 April 2022Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant, sought possession of a shop owned by the respondent. A civil suit for possession was filed in 2013, before the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (the Act) applied to the area. During the suit, the State Government notified that the Act would become effective on 11 May 2015, and the civil court p

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusM/S. ANANT RAJ AGENCIES PVT. LTD.

2016 INSC 30812 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) leased a plot to Balraj Virmani for 20 years with an option to renew for another 20 years. The lessee breached lease conditions, was served notice, and after the lease expired on 10‑08‑1968 the DDA issued a termination notice on 01‑09‑1972. The lessee later sold the property to M/s

S. KALADEVIversusV.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ORS.

2010 INSC 20512 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S. Kaladevi, filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement for an immovable property, seeking execution of a fresh sale deed and an injunction. The sale deed dated 27‑02‑2006 had been executed but could not be registered because of an attachment on the property, and the trial court refused to

R. SAVITHRI NAIDUversusM/S THE COTTON CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 15012 February 2026Dismissed

The dispute arose from a sale of cotton bales between CCI and M/s Lakshmi Ganesh Textiles Ltd, which led to an arbitral award for recovery of money in 2001. The award was challenged but the challenge was dismissed in 2013. Subsequently, ICICI Bank, as a secured creditor, attached the debtor's properties under the SARFA

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusM/S. KARAMDEEP FINANCE & INVESTMENT (I) PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 18612 February 2019Disposed off

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) auctioned a lease‑hold residential plot that had been acquired by the Income Tax Department under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act, which had already paid the unearned increase to DDA. M/s. Karamdeep Finance & Investment (I) Pvt. Ltd. purchased the plot at auction, later applied

KISHORILAL (D) THR. LRS & ORS.versusGOPAL & ORS.

2026 INSC 4812 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff Gopal sued the deceased vendor Kishorilal for specific performance of a sale agreement; the vendor's heirs and the purchasers (appellants 2 and 3) were joined in the suit which was decreed in Kishorilal's favour. An appeal (F.A. No.213 of 2000) was filed, but Kishorilal died and his four legal heirs were

ASMA LATEEF & ANRversusSHABBIR AHMAD & ORS

2024 INSC 3612 January 2024Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction over a property, alleging an oral gift, while the defendants contested the suit's maintainability under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The trial court, ignoring the written statement of one defendant and the pending jurisdictional objecti

DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS.versusPRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.

2024 INSC 104911 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit in 2017 seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated 04‑12‑2004, alleging fraud and claiming they only became aware of the deed on 31‑03‑2017 when a revenue notice was issued. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the thre

SMT. NARESH KUMARI & ORS.versusSMT. CHAMELI & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 69311 December 2024Dismissed

The appellants, heirs of Rai Bahadur Randhir Singh, claimed that a 1953 oral gift of 38 Bighas of land to the respondents was conditional on the donees rendering lifelong services to the donor and his heirs, and that the cessation of such services entitled the donors to resume possession. The trial court and first appe

SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2011 INSC 73911 October 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the legality of transactions that rely on Sale Agreements, General Power of Attorney or Wills (collectively termed SA/GPA/Will transfers) as a mode of transferring immovable property. It observed that such arrangements are used to evade stamp duty, registration fees and to facilitate black‑mo

CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITYversusCOSTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD. AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 56311 August 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd obtained loans from thirteen financial institutions which formed a consortium and appointed State Bank of India as a security trustee. The borrower executed a single mortgage deed (Indenture of Mortgage) with the trustee, paying Rs 4.21 lakh stamp duty. The Gujarat revenue authority demanded a

ASHA RANI GUPTAversusSRI VINEET KUMAR

2022 INSC 68411 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Asha Rani Gupta, the plaintiff‑lessor, filed an eviction suit against Sri Vineet Kumar, the defendant‑lessee, for non‑payment of rent and damages. The trial court struck off the defendant’s defence under Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC for failing to deposit the admitted rent, a decision affirmed by the revisional court. Th

RAM MURTI DEVIversusPUSHPA DEVI AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 60411 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord let a ground‑floor shop to the tenant and later terminated the tenancy, suing for eviction on the grounds of rent arrears and alleged sub‑letting. The landlord claimed the tenant had allowed Mohd. Ezaj Khan to occupy part of the shop and charge Rs.50 per day for watch‑repair work, while the tenant asserted

SIDDAGANGAIAH (D) THR. LRS.versusN.K. GIRIRAJA SHETTY (D) THR. LRS.

2018 INSC 50611 May 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant (defendant) sought to enforce a maintenance decree against her husband, during which the husband executed a sale deed of the disputed property to the plaintiff. The decree was later executed by a court auction, where the decree‑holder purchased the property, and the sale was confirmed after the plaintiff'

RUPA AND CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusFIRHAD HAKIM AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 24511 February 2025Directions issued

The appellants Rupa & Co. Ltd paid Rs.4,00,92,000 for a plot of land in New Town, Kolkata, based on HIDCO's promise to convey it on a free‑hold basis. HIDCO later altered the terms to a 99‑year lease and subsequently demanded additional payment at market rates, prompting the appellants to file a writ petition which the

SRIDHAR & ANR.versusN. REVANNA & ORS.

2020 INSC 16511 February 2020Dismissed

The grandfather of the parties gifted a property to his grandson, N. Revanna, on 5 June 1957, inserting a condition that the donee and any younger brothers born thereafter could not alienate the property. Revanna later sold the property to four other persons in 1985. The plaintiffs, minor sons of Revanna, sued for a de

RAJ KISHORE (DEAD) BY LRS.versusPREM SINGH & ORS.

2010 INSC 87010 December 2010Dismissed

The plaintiff Raj Kishore executed a sale deed in 1974 transferring land to Prem Singh for Rs 6,000, claiming it was a security for a loan and that an agreement for re‑conveyance would revert the land upon repayment by 6 July 1981. He sued for a declaration that the sale deed was void and that he remained the owner. Th

RASHEEDA KHATOON (D) THROUGH LRS.versusASHIQ ALI S/O LT. ABU MOHD (D) THROUGH LRS.

2014 INSC 70110 October 2014Dismissed

The case concerned an alleged oral gift (hiba) of a house by Abdul Haq, a Muslim, to Rasheeda Khatoon about seven years before his death. After Haq's death, his heirs sought possession, prompting Rasheeda to file a suit for declaration of ownership. The trial court and first appellate court held the oral gift valid, de

DUNI CHANDversusVIKRAM SINGH AND OTHERS

2024 INSC 51610 July 2024Case Allowed

The plaintiff, Tota Ram, claimed ownership of a land based on a registered Will dated 12‑12‑1988 executed by the deceased Beli Ram, while the defendants relied on a later Will dated 16‑05‑1994 to transfer the land to themselves and subsequent purchasers. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court

YOGESH GOYANKAversusGOVIND & ORS.

2024 INSC 51010 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased farming land from a seller during the pendency of a suit challenging earlier release deeds, and obtained a registered sale deed while fully aware of the litigation. He applied to be impleaded as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, but the Additional District Judge dismissed the applica

M/S SHAHA RATANSI KHIMJI & SONSversusPROPOSED KUMBHAR SONS HOTEL P. LTD. & ORS.

2014 INSC 48210 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Shaha Ratansi Khimji & Sons, held a lease over a godown on a portion of land. The respondent, Proposed Kumbhar Sons Hotel Ltd., purchased the lessor's interest, demolished the building and dug a trench that threatened the godown, and asked the appellant to vacate. The appellant claimed that the lease

M/S. L.K. TRUSTversusEDC LTD. & ORS.

2011 INSC 37410 May 2011Dismissed

The appellant L.K. Trust claimed that a concluded contract existed between it and EDC Ltd. for the sale of a mortgaged hotel property, arguing that the mortgagor (Falcon Retreat Pvt. Ltd., respondent No.3) had lost its statutory right of redemption under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court hel

SRI M.V. RAMACHANDRASA SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRSversusM/S MAHENDRA WATCH COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS & ORS.

2026 INSC 34810 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, the legal heirs of the deceased Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa, sued M/s Mahendra Watch Company and its partners for unlawful sub‑letting of a shop premises in Bengaluru. The trial court held that the original tenant had part‑ed with legal possession to respondents No.2 and No.3, who were strangers to the lease,

R. HEMALATHAversusKASHTHURI

2023 INSC 33610 April 2023Dismissed

The appellant (original defendant) challenged the High Court's order that an unregistered Agreement to Sell, executed on 10‑09‑2013, could be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance. The dispute centered on whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, which made agreements to sell immovable property of R

PRATIMA CHOWDHURYversusKALPANA MUKHERJEE & ANR.

2014 INSC 8710 February 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Pratima Chowdhury, a member of a West Bengal cooperative housing society, sought to transfer her flat and membership to Kalpana Mukherjee, claiming the transfer was a gift without consideration. The arbitrator found the transfer invalid, noting that the letters effecting the transfer were likely drafted by Partha Mukhe

MATHEW VARGHESEversusM. AMRITHA KUMAR & ORS.

[2014] 2 S.C.R. 73610 February 2014Disposed off

The case concerned the sale of a mortgaged property by a bank under the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court examined whether the bank, as a secured creditor, had complied with Section 13(8) of the Act and Rules 8 and 9, which require a 30‑day individual notice and a public notice before any sale. It held that the sale effe

ALAGAMMAL AND ORS.versusGANESAN AND ANR.

2024 INSC 2810 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The sellers (Alagammal and others) entered into a registered agreement of sale on 22‑Nov‑1990 with the buyers (Ganesan and others) for Rs.21,000, stipulating that the balance be paid within six months. The buyers paid only a fraction of the amount and failed to complete the purchase before the deadline, while the selle

NADIMINTI SURYANARAYAN MURTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusKOTHURTHI KRISHNA BHASKARA RAO & ORS.

2017 INSC 10159 October 2017Disposed off

The plaintiff (respondent No. I) entered into a genuine sale agreement on 18‑01‑1983 with defendants Nos.1‑5 for a house, paying Rs.1,000 as advance. Instead of executing the sale deed, the defendants sold the same house to defendant No.6 on 09‑02‑1983, relying on a purported earlier agreement dated 04‑01‑1983, which t

VITHAL TUKARAM KADAM AND ANOTHERversusVAMANRAO SAWALARAM BHOSALE AND OTHERS

2017 INSC 7219 August 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff executed a deed in 1953 that was styled as a sale of land for a nominal sum of Rs.700, but included a clause that the land would be returned if the amount was repaid within ten years. The parties were long‑time acquaintances, with the plaintiff having repeatedly borrowed money from the defendant, establis

MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.versusKARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2024 INSC 4919 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The case concerned a registered agreement for sale of 2.90 acres of land executed in 1981, which the plaintiffs sought to enforce by specific performance. The defendants argued that the agreement was a sham, forged, and that they were bona‑fide purchasers without notice of the agreement. The Supreme Court held that Sec

DAHIBENversusARVINDBHAI KALYANJI BHANUSALI (GAJRA) (D) THR LRS & ORS.

2020 INSC 4509 July 2020Dismissed

The plaintiffs sold agricultural land to respondent No.1 in 2009 and alleged that only a small part of the sale consideration was paid, seeking cancellation of the sale deed. They filed the suit in December 2014, more than five years after the deed, claiming the cause of action arose only when they discovered alleged f

RAJ DADARKAR & ASSOCIATESversusACIT-CC-46

2017 INSC 4579 May 2017Dismissed

The appellant, a partnership firm, obtained lease‑hold rights to a stilt portion of a municipal market through auction and constructed a shopping centre, sub‑licensing shops to traders. The Assessing Officer re‑assessed the income from these sub‑licences under the head "Income from House Property" on the basis that the

RUSSI FISHERIES P. LTD. & ANR.versusBHAVNA SETH & ORS.

2026 INSC 3399 April 2026Dismissed

The case concerns a suit for specific performance of an 1988 agreement to sell agricultural land, where the plaintiff paid Rs.7,75,000 and claimed readiness to execute the sale deed, but the defendants alleged non‑payment of cash and lack of willingness. The trial court dismissed the specific performance claim, but the

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF KANDLAversusHARGOVIND JASRAJ & ANR.

2013 INSC 259 January 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Board of Trustees of Kandla Port terminated a lease of a 1891.64‑sq‑m parcel to Smt. Pushpa Shah after she defaulted on rent, issuing a termination order on 8‑Aug‑1977 effective 13‑Dec‑1978 and taking possession via a panchnama on 14‑Dec‑1978. The lessee’s own letter of 22‑Feb‑1979 admitted that possession had been

DAULAT SINGH (D) THR. LRS.versusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

2020 INSC 6848 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Daulat Singh, the appellant, owned 254.2 bighas of land and gifted 127.1 bighas to his son in 1963, leaving him with 17.25 standard acres below the ceiling limit. The Rajasthan Revenue Ceiling Department later reopened the case in 1982, alleging excess holdings, and the High Court declared the gift deed invalid for lac

T.G. ASHOK KUMARversusGOVINDAMMAL AND ANR.

2010 INSC 8638 December 2010Case Partly allowed

The appellant, T.G. Ashok Kumar, purchased a plot from the second respondent in 1990, unaware of a pending partition suit filed by the first respondent. The partition suit, which was not collusive, was decreed in 1994 and finally divided the property such that three‑quarters went to the first respondent and one‑quarter

M/S SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.versusKATTA SUJATHA REDDY & ORS.

2024 INSC 8618 November 2024

The petitioner, Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., entered into two agreements to sell agricultural land with the respondents in 1997, paid a substantial portion of the consideration, and sought specific performance after the respondents refused to execute the sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, the High

SUZUKI PARASRAMPURIA SUITINGS PVT. LTD.versusTHE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF MAHENDRA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 9378 October 2018Leave Granted & Dismissed

Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) was assigned the debt of Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd. (MPL) by IFCI for a nominal sum and sought substitution as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act. The Company Judge rejected the application, holding that the appellant was not a bank, financial institution

YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI &ANR.versusBUDDHA JAGADHEESWARARAO & ORS.

2015 INSC 7558 October 2015Case Partly allowed

In a partition suit, the defendants sought to introduce two unregistered documents (Exhibit B‑21, a deed of memorandum, and Exhibit B‑22, an agreement) to prove the division of property. The trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the documents inadmissible, reasoning that they were compulsorily registerable

KAMMANA SAMBAMURTHY (D) BY LRS.versusKALIPATNAPU ATCHUTAMMA (D) AND ORS.

2010 INSC 6978 October 2010Dismissed

The vendee, Kammana Sambamurthy, entered into a sale agreement with the vendor, Kalipatnapu Kamaraju, for an entire house, paying an advance of Rs.10,000. The vendor's wife, Kalipatnapu Atchutamma, later claimed a half‑share in the property under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and sought cancellation of the agr

HAR NARAIN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusMAM CHAND (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 7008 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the legal representatives of the deceased Har Narain, entered into an agreement for sale of eight kanals of land with the owner, Mam Chand, who later executed a sale deed in favour of respondents 2‑6 on 2 August 1971. The deed was registered on 3 September 1971, after the appellant had filed a suit for s

MAHARAJI EDUCATIONAL TRUSTversusHOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

2017 INSC 12888 May 2017Disposed off

Maharaji Educational Trust borrowed Rs.75 crore from HUDCO and mortgaged six properties. It later exchanged 21 acres of one mortgaged property with Avas Parishad and entered into a sale agreement for the entire 63.45 acres (including the exchanged land) with SGS Constructions, which was subject to an interim injunction

DR. AMBICA PRASADversusMD. ALAM AND ANOTHER

2015 INSC 2998 April 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Ambica Prasad filed an eviction suit against Abdul Karim, claiming ownership of the tenanted premises through exchange deeds executed with his brother, the original owner. The trial court held that the appellant was not the landlord, but the appellate court reversed this, finding him to be the landlord based on ren

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAIversusM/S BYRAMJEE JEEJEEBHOY PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2011 INSC 2848 April 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai, as landlord, sued M/s Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. (tenant) and its sub‑tenant Wadi Sunder Cotton Press Co. for eviction on the ground of unlawful sub‑letting under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. The trial court and the High Court held that the sub‑lease breached the lease deed

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABADversusSOLID & CORRECT ENGINEERING WORKS & ORS.

2010 INSC 2028 April 2010

The case concerned whether the erection of an Asphalt Drum/Hot Mix Plant using duty‑paid components constitutes the manufacture of excisable goods under Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether the manufacturers of the plant’s parts were eligible for exemption under Notification No.1/93‑CE. The Supreme

RAKESH & ORS.versusBOARD OF REVENUE U.P. & ORS. ETC.

2019 INSC 3368 March 2019Case Partly allowed

Pursottam, a Sirdar, deposited twenty times the land revenue and applied for Bhumidhari rights for three plots, subsequently executing a sale deed. His applications for two plots were rejected and a revision petition was pending when the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1977 (la

SADASHIV PRASAD SINGHversusHARENDAR SINGH & ORS.

2014 INSC 178 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the public auction of Plot No.722, attached in a debt recovery proceeding against a partnership firm. Sadashiv Prasad Singh, the highest bidder, was confirmed as the purchaser, took possession and obtained mutation of the property. Harendar Singh, brother of the origina

GOPAL SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSWARAN SINGH & ORS.

2018 INSC 11687 December 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The land in question was sold under a restricted auction pursuant to the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976 and later the sale was cancelled by an order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28 March 1985, which became final. The plaintiffs filed a suit claiming they were bonafide purchasers and seeking a d

M/S. GOVIND IMPEX (P) LTD. AND ORS.versusAPPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

2010 INSC 8567 December 2010Dismissed

The appellants leased premises for nine years with a clause allowing the lessee to extend the lease for a further nine years, subject to conditions. The Income Tax Department treated the lease as exceeding twelve years, invoking Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act and requiring filing of Form 37‑1. The appellants contend

SAMIULLAHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 12927 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amendments that introduced sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19, which made the production of jamabandi or holding‑allotment proof a condition precedent for registering sale or gift documents. The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petitions, holding t

PREM AGGARWALversusMOHAN SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 12147 October 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Prem Aggarwal, entered into an agreement to purchase a property in 1989, paid Rs.25,000 as earnest money and later sued for specific performance, which the Supreme Court dismissed on the ground of bar under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, but awarded her Rs.2 crore as compensation. The respondents deposited

DHARMRAO SHARANAPPA SHABADI AND OTHERSversusSYEDA ARIFA PARVEEN

2025 INSC 11877 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Syeda Arifa Parveen, claimed ownership of 24 acres of agricultural land on the basis of being the sole daughter of Khadijabee and of an oral gift (hiba) of 10 acres made by her mother. The trial court rejected the oral gift but granted her a 3/4 share of the remaining land, while the Karnataka High Court

K. NAINA MOHAMED (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusA.M. VASUDEVAN CHETTIAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3727 July 2010Dismissed

The testator’s 1951 Will gave life interest in two houses to her sisters and, after their deaths, vested absolute title in the male heirs, subject to a clause that any sale must be to the other male heirs at market price and not to strangers. After a partition, Rukmani Ammal and her son sold one house (property B) to K

KARAM KAPAHI & OTHERSversusM/S. LAL CHAND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST & ANOTHER

2010 INSC 2007 April 2010Dismissed

The Lal Chand Public Charitable Trust leased property to the South Delhi Club and later terminated the lease for non‑payment of rent. The Trust sued for possession; the Club contested the Trust’s title and sought relief under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, while also admitting non‑payment of rent in its s

C.S. VENKATESHversusMURTHY (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 1437 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, C.S. Venkatesh, appealed a High Court order that had declared a 1975 sale deed executed by the deceased plaintiff, A.S.C. Murthy, as a nominal security transaction and directed specific performance of a reconveyance agreement. The Supreme Court examined whether the sale deed was an outright sale or a mor

LAKSHMI ALIAS BHAGYALAKSHMI AND ANR.versusE. JAYARAM (D) BY LR.

2013 INSC 807 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs claimed ownership of a property purchased from the defendant, although the sale deed was unregistered, and filed a suit for permanent injunction together with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for interim relief. The trial court granted an interim injunction protecting the plaintiff

RAHEJA UNVIERSAL LIMITEDversusNRC LIMITED & ORS.

2012 INSC 777 February 2012Dismissed

NRC Ltd, a sick industrial company, entered into a memorandum of understanding and subsequent agreements with K. Raheja Universal Ltd for the sale of 344 acres of land to raise funds for restructuring. The sale was only partially paid and the company later sought a corporate debt restructuring (CDR) scheme, which was a

BIRMA DEVI & ORS.versusSUBHASH & ANR.

2024 INSC 9496 December 2024Dismissed

The petitioners, who claim to be subsequent purchasers of a suit property, challenged a High Court order directing the execution court to grant possession to the decree‑holders (plaintiffs) in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The trial court had decreed specific performance but did not expressly awa

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusSUDERA REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED

2022 INSC 9286 September 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute between Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (appellant) and Sudera Realty Private Ltd. (respondent) over a lease of three floors in a Kolkata building. It held that the 1968 agreement and the 1969 supplementary deed constituted a valid 21‑year lease, with possession of the 2nd and 3rd floor

KARAN KAPOORversusMADHURI KUMAR

2022 INSC 6616 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Karan Kapoor, was a tenant of a residential property owned by the respondent, Madhuri Kumar, under lease agreements from 2011 to 2014. After the lease expired, the appellant stopped paying rent and the respondent filed a suit for possession, rent, and mesne profits. The appellant claimed that subsequent

TRILOKI NATH SINGHversusANIRUDH SINGH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2020 INSC 3856 May 2020Dismissed

The appellant, who purchased land by a sale deed in 1984, filed a suit seeking a declaration that a compromise decree passed by the High Court in 1994 in a partition suit was illegal, fraudulent and void. The decree was passed in a second appeal concerning parties other than the appellant, who was a stranger to the com

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusDINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS.

2014 INSC 3616 May 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a 0.90‑acre parcel of land in Pune Cantonment held under an 1827 government grant. The respondents had purchased the lease‑hold rights and the superstructure on the land, while the Union of India (Pune Cantonment Board) issued a resumption notice in 1971 claiming the land remained government prope

PRADEEP OIL CORPORATIONversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ANR.

2011 INSC 2786 April 2011Dismissed

Pradeep Oil Corporation was granted land by the Government under the Government Grants Act to erect petroleum storage tanks and related structures. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi assessed property tax on the tanks, treating them as "buildings". The corporation argued the grant was a lease, making the corporation li

DWARIKA PRASADversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

2018 INSC 2106 March 2018Disposed off

The appellant, a guarantor, created an equitable mortgage over his property to secure a loan that later defaulted. The bank invoked the SARFAESI Act and initiated auction proceedings, which the appellant attempted to halt by offering partial payment and filing writ petitions. The High Court stayed the sale until the ap

BALWANT VITHAL KADAMversusSUNIL BABURAOI KADAM

2017 INSC 11705 December 2017Dismissed

The respondent sued the appellants for specific performance of two agreements to sell a share of land, having paid earnest money but no deed was executed. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court set aside that decree and ordered specific performance. The appellants appealed, arguing that the a

REVANASIDDAYYAversusGANGAMMA @ SHASHIKALA & ANR.

2017 INSC 11715 December 2017Disposed off

The appellant purchased land from the original owner, Veerabasayya, and was given possession after paying earnest money, but the owner died before the sale deed was executed. The respondents, as legal heirs, sued for a declaration of ownership and possession, and the trial court declared them owners but denied possessi

VINOD KUMARversusASHOK KUMAR GANDHI

2019 INSC 8605 August 2019Directions issued

The appeal arose from tenants of a non‑residential shop challenging an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and seeking to have the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyawati Sharma case referred to a larger bench. The petitioners contended that the Satyawati Sharma judgment was per inc

SHYAM LALversusDEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

2016 INSC 4965 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Shyam Lal held an agricultural lease from 29 May 1996 to 28 May 2005, but the lease was not registered. After the lease expired he continued to occupy the land and filed a suit for injunction to restrain the landlord from ousting him. The landlord cross‑claimed a mandatory injunction for vacation, arguing that the tena

ITC LTD.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2011 INSC 4585 July 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the cancellation of leases and allotments of commercial plots in Noida granted to hotel developers under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. It held that a lease governed by a statute can be cancelled only if

VINOD SETHversusDEVINDER BAJAJ AND ANR.

2010 INSC 3475 July 2010Case Partly allowed

The plaintiff, a builder, sued the owners of a residential property for specific performance of an alleged oral collaboration agreement to develop the land. The High Court, noting the suit's low chance of success and heavy court dockets, ordered the plaintiff to furnish an undertaking to pay Rs.25 lakhs as damages if h

HAFEEZA BIBI & ORS.versusSHAIKH FARID (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS

2011 INSC 3575 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

In a partition suit governed by Sunni law, the defendant claimed that his father had gifted him immovable property by a written hiba deed dated 5‑2‑1968 and that the deed, though unregistered, was valid. The trial court held the gift valid, but the High Court set it aside on the ground that an instrument of gift of imm

ASGAR & ORS.versusMOHAN VARMA & ORS.

2019 INSC 1445 February 2019Dismissed

The appellants, Asgar and others, were lessees occupying a large tract of land in Kerala and sought a declaration that they could remain in possession and claim compensation for improvements under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958. They first raised this claim in an execution application under

MOTILAL OSWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusSANTOSH CORDEIRO AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 55 January 2026Dismissed

The dispute arose from a Leave and License Agreement between Motilal Oswal Financial Services Ltd. and Santosh Cordeiro, which contained an arbitration clause in Clause 33. The respondent filed a Section 11 application under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator, which the Hi

OM PRAKASH (DEAD) TH. HIS LRS.versusSHANTI DEVI & ORS.

2015 INSC 15 January 2015Dismissed

The appellant claimed ownership of a disputed immovable property on the basis of a registered Gift Deed dated 15‑05‑1970, asserting that Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872 would give a presumption of proper execution because the deed was over thirty years old. The trial court, and subsequently the High Court, rejecte

INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD.versusM/S JAIN CABLES PVF. LTD. & ORS.

2011 INSC 145 January 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (IRBI) sanctioned a loan to Jain Cables Ltd., which defaulted. After the Industrial Reconstruction Bank (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 1997 transferred IRBI's undertakings to the Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. (IIBL), the latter issued a notice under s.38

HARBHAJAN SINGH ETCversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 13154 December 2019Dismissed

The appellants, tenants of shops in a Gurudwara, challenged the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 on the ground that it withdrew the protection afforded to them under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 and violated Article 14. The Supreme Court held that the State

UNITECH LTD. &ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2015 INSC 8264 November 2015Appeal(s) allowed

Vidarbha Engineering, a lessee of three plots of land, entered into a collaboration agreement with Unitech to develop a commercial complex, whereby Unitech would construct the building, retain 78% of the built‑up area and transfer 22% to Vidarbha. The parties filed a statement under Section 269UC stating a consideratio

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusBALBIR SINGH MAINI

2017 INSC 10024 October 2017Dismissed

The respondents, members of a cooperative housing society, entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with developers to develop 21.2 acres of land. Only two instalments were paid and 7.7 acres were conveyed, for which capital gains tax was paid. The Assessing Officer and the ITAT treated the unreceived considera

AMEER MINHAJversusDIERDRE ELIZABETH (WRIGHT) ISSAR AND ORS.

2018 INSC 5784 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a 2003 agreement to sell land, relying on an unregistered sale deed, a registered power of attorney, and an earlier unregistered 1995 agreement. The respondents challenged the admissibility of these documents, arguing that the 2003 deed required registration under

MRS. SARADAMANI KANDAPPANversusMRS. S. RAJALAKSHMI & ORS.

2011 INSC 4464 July 2011Disposed off

The appellant entered into an agreement of sale for immovable property, paying an advance and agreeing to pay the balance in three instalments, with clause 6 expressly making timely payment the essence of the contract. The respondents cancelled the agreement when the appellant failed to pay the second and third instalm

DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) THROUGH LRSversusSHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE & ORS

2023 INSC 4914 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought possession of a 3‑acre agricultural field based on a registered sale deed dated 21‑04‑1979. The defendants argued that the deed was a sham, executed as collateral for a money‑lending transaction, and that the sale violated the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Ac

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORversusUJJAIN NAGAR PALIKA NIGAM & ORS

2023 INSC 4894 May 2023Dismissed

The Official Liquidator (OL) of IISCO Ujjain Pipe and Foundry Co. Ltd., wound up under the Companies Act, sold the company's assets on an "as is where is whatever there is" basis. Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam (respondent No.1) claimed arrears of property tax and water tax for the period from the winding‑up order (10 July

THE COSMOS CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 2434 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. (appellant) challenged a High Court order that held Central Bank of India (respondent No.1) had the first charge over a flat mortgaged by the original borrowers. Both banks had received security documents: the appellant bank held the share certificate of ownership, while the responden

SKILL LOTTO SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 6763 December 2020Dismissed

Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt. Ltd., an authorised agent for Punjab lotteries, filed a writ petition under Art.32 challenging the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) on the grounds that the definition of ‘goods’ in s.2(52) – which includes actionable claims – is unconstitutional and that taxing lottery, bet

THE STATE OF KERALA & ORSversusM/S JOSEPH & COMPANY

2021 INSC 4423 September 2021Disposed off

The Kerala government auctioned 246.26 acres of forest land in 1953 and later executed a lease deed in 1979 in favour of K.K. Joseph, who represented the partnership firm M/s Joseph & Company. The lease prohibited sub‑letting or assignment without the lessor’s written consent (clause 14). In 1983 the lessee sold 50 acr

D. N. JOSHI (D) THR. LRS. & OTHERSversusD. C. HARRIS & ANOTHER

2017 INSC 5783 July 2017Dismissed

The appeal concerned a suit for eviction filed by D.C. Harris (respondent) against tenants D.N. Joshi and others (appellants) who challenged the respondents' title to the premises. The title derived from a 1949 gift deed by Akhtari Begum to her brother Zamir Ahmad, followed by a 1965 sale deed to the respondents. The l

A. NAWAB JOHN & ORS.versusV.N. SUBRAMANIYAM

2012 INSC 2633 July 2012Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for specific performance but initially paid only a deficient court fee. After multiple representations and condonation of delay, the trial court allowed the deficit fee to be paid well beyond the limitation period. The second defendant, a pendente‑lite purchaser, was impleaded and challenged

CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGHversusMUKHTIAR SINGH & ORS.

2024 INSC 3773 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant entered into an agreement to sell 16 kanals of land with respondent No.3, paid earnest money and later obtained a temporary injunction against alienation of the property on 28 July 2003. On the same day respondent No.3 executed a release deed in favour of his son (respondent No.4), who subsequently sold t

GOPALAKRISHNA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusNARAYANAGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

2019 INSC 4593 April 2019Dismissed

The case concerned the ownership of property originally belonging to Ramanna, who died in 1907 leaving a widow Seethamma and a daughter Venkamma. The appellants claimed title based on a 1955 sale deed executed by Jankamma, the granddaughter of Ramanna, while the respondents asserted possession derived from an earlier 1

HARSHAD GOVARDHAN SONDAGARversusINTERNATIONAL ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

2014 INSC 9553 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who were tenants of premises mortgaged to banks, challenged the seizure of those premises by the secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court examined whether a lease made by the mortgagor, either before or after the mortgage, remains valid and binding on the secured creditor, and whether

KN ASWATHNARAYANA SETTY (D) TR. LRS. & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2013 INSC 8012 December 2013Dismissed

The petitioners purchased land that had been subject to a Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while the de‑notification of that acquisition was under appeal before the Supreme Court. The Court held that a purchaser after such a notification cannot challenge the acquisition and, under the doctri

CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOLversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2024 INSC 5702 August 2024Dismissed

The dispute concerned a garden lease of a Nazul plot in Lucknow that vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh. City Montessori School (CMS) had the highest bid in a 1995 auction, but the State cancelled its bid and later converted the leasehold to freehold in favour of the alleged lessee for a nominal sum. CMS challenged t

SHABBIR MOHAMMAD SAYEDversusMRS. NOOR JEHAN MUSHTER SHAIKH & ORS.

2022 INSC 7842 August 2022Dismissed

The plaintiff obtained a decree declaring her as tenant of a premises in Mumbai and ordered the landlord to hand over possession. The appellant, Shabbir Mohammad Sayed, claimed he had acquired leasehold rights from the alleged lawful tenant and also from the landlord on 24 January 2014, and sought execution of the decr

SHEHAMMALversusHASAN KHANI RAWTHER AND ORS.

2011 INSC 5332 August 2011Dismissed

The case concerned the intestate estate of Meeralava Rawther, a Muslim who had executed deeds of relinquishment with five of his children (excluding his youngest son, Hassan) in exchange for consideration. After his death, Hassan claimed an oral gift of the entire property, while the other children and the petitioners

SHYAM NARAYAN PRASADversusKRISHNA PRASAD AND ORS.

2018 INSC 5562 July 2018Dismissed

The case concerned a partition of ancestral Hindu Mitakshara property of Gopalji Prasad among his sons, after which the share allotted to defendant No.2 was claimed to be ancestral for his sons and grandson. The plaintiffs sought to set aside an exchange deed executed between defendant No.1 and No.2, arguing that it in

N.K. RAJENDRA MOHANversusTHIRVAMADI RUBBER CO. LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 4712 July 2015Dismissed

In 1918 the plaintiffs leased 963.75 acres of land to Mr. Campbell Hunt for 36 years, allowing the lessee to cultivate any crop and clear forests. The lease later passed to Thiruvamadi Rubber Co., which continued possession after the lease expired, paying rent until 1978 and establishing a rubber plantation. The plaint

VATHSALA MANICKAVASAGAM & ORS.versusN. GANESAN & ANR.

2013 INSC 4112 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

A family of five members disputed the ownership of three houses. The mother, two sons and a daughter filed a partition suit against the eldest son, claiming a 4/5 share in the properties. The trial court, relying on the mother’s testimony and a letter (Ex.A‑17) written by the eldest son, held that all three houses were

G. VIKRAM KUMARversusSTATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS.

2023 INSC 4752 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The borrower (G. Vikram Kumar) failed to repay a loan to State Bank of Hyderabad, which invoked Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and attached the borrower's properties. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) allowed the bank to sell the properties but excluded seven flats; Flat No.6401 was not among them. The borrower enter

PATEL RAVJIBHAI BHULABHAJ (D) THR. LRS.versusRAHEMANBHAI M .. SHAIKH (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2016 INSC 11812 May 2016Dismissed

The parties executed a deed on 30‑December‑1960 titled a conditional sale for Rs 10,000, containing a clause that if the plaintiffs repaid the amount within five years the defendants would return possession of the land, and after five years the plaintiffs would have no right to claim it back. The plaintiffs later sued

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITEDversusRAMA CHANDRASHEKHAR VAIDYA AND ANR.

2013 INSC 2072 April 2013Dismissed

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (the appellant) occupied land under a 1955 lease that granted a unilateral right to renew for another 25 years. After the Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 came into force, the appellant gave notice of renewal in October 1979 but no fresh lease deed was exec

BAINI PRASAD (D) THR. LRS.versusDURGA DEVI

2023 INSC 952 February 2023Dismissed

The respondent, Durga Devi, owned an 11‑biswas land parcel in Kullu and sued the appellant, Baini Prasad, for possession and demolition of a verandah he had constructed on that land in 1986, claiming he believed it to be his own. The trial court ordered demolition and restoration of possession to the respondent; the Fi

RAMVILAS (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusKARIM KHAN & ANR.

2016 INSC 10851 December 2016Dismissed

The respondent-plaintiff obtained a loan from the appellants and executed a deed titled a Sale Deed on 14‑06‑1972, which was later alleged to be a mortgage by conditional sale. The parties also signed an agreement that the sale would be cancelled and the land returned if the loan (Rs.5,000) was repaid by 14‑06‑1973; th

MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS.versusRAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. AND ORS.

2023 INSC 9691 November 2023Dismissed

The petitioners, legatees of the deceased Mohideen Abdul Khadar, challenged a Madras High Court judgment that upheld the title and possession of Rahmath Beevi over a second scheduled property measuring 15 × 18 feet. The dispute arose from earlier suits where Mohideen claimed title to a first scheduled property and soug

SHAKEEL AHMEDversusSYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN

2023 INSC 10161 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a suit for possession and mesne profits of a property relying on an unregistered power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit and will, while the appellant, who was in possession, claimed title through an oral gift (Hiba) from his brother. The trial court decreed possession in favour of the resp

KORUKONDA CHALAPATHI RAO & ANR.versusKORUKONDA ANNAPURNA SAMPATH KUMAR

2021 INSC 5861 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a partition of family property where the respondent sought a declaration of title and eviction of the appellants. The appellants relied on a family settlement document (Khararunama) dated 15‑04‑1986 and a receipt of Rs.2,00,000 as evidence of the parties' past arrangements. The trial court admitt

RAMESH CHAND (D) THR. LRS.versusSURESH CHAND AND ANR.

2025 INSC 10591 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff claimed title to a Delhi property on the basis of an agreement to sell, a general power of attorney, a receipt of consideration, an affidavit and a registered will executed by his father, Kundan Lal. The trial court and High Court had upheld his claim, but the Supreme Court examined whether these document

YADAIAH AND ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 6641 August 2023Dismissed

The case concerned land allotted in the 1960s to landless Scheduled Caste/Tribe persons in Manchirevula village, which the assignees later transferred through a General Power of Attorney to a third party who sold the land. The State of Telangana issued a second show‑cause notice (SCN) alleging violation of the Andhra P

EIH LIMITEDversusNADIAVIRJI

2022 INSC 7741 August 2022Dismissed

The landlord (EIH Ltd.) and tenant (Nadia A. Virji) entered into a tenancy agreement for a commercial showroom with a fixed rent of Rs 10,000 per month, while the tenant also agreed to pay municipal taxes separately. The landlord terminated the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed an evic

GUJARAT COMPOSITE LIMITEDversusA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS.

2023 INSC 4701 May 2023Dismissed

Gujarat Composite Ltd. entered into a licence agreement with A Infrastructure Ltd. in 2005 that contained an arbitration clause, and later entered into a tripartite loan agreement with the same party and Bank of Baroda that lacked any arbitration provision. Disputes arose over possession, loan repayment, and conveyance

THULASIDHARA & ANOTHERversusNARAYANAPPA & OTHERS

2019 INSC 6031 May 2019Disposed off

The original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of a property based on a registered sale deed. The defendants contended that the property had become part of a joint family and that the sale deed was merely a security instrument, not an operative transfer, and th

RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARDversusNEW PINK CITY NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. & ANR.

2015 INSC 3751 May 2015Disposed off

The Rajasthan Housing Board and the original Khatedars appealed against a Division Bench order that granted the New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (the Society) a right to compensation and 25% of the developed land after the State acquired the land under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. The Court held th

SMT. UMA DEVI AND ORS.versusSRI. ANAND KUMAR AND ORS.

2025 INSC 4341 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, grandchildren of Shivanna, filed a suit for partition of ancestral immovable property in 2023, alleging denial of their share. The defendants moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, contending that the property had been orally partitioned in 1968 and that registered sale deeds executed in

JOGI RAMversusSURESH KUMAR & ORS

2022 INSC 1311 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a Will dated 15 April 1968 in which Tulsi Ram bequeathed half of his self‑acquired property to his second wife, Ram Devi, as a limited life interest, with the remainder to pass to his son, Jogi Ram, after her death. The question was whether Ram Devi’s interest became an absolute ownership under Secti

MUNSHI LALversusSMT. SANTOSH & ORS.

2017 INSC 941 February 2017Disposed off

The landlord, Munshi Lal, sought eviction of his tenant, Hakim Rai (deceased) and his successors, alleging that the tenant had sub-let a Kiraria shop to his son‑in‑law Raj Kumar under a partnership deed without the landlord's written consent. The Rent Controller held the partnership to be a ruse and that the son‑in‑law

SRI MAHESHversusSANGRAM & ORS

2025 INSC 141 January 2025Case Partly allowed

The appellant, an adopted son, claimed entitlement to half of his adoptive mother's joint family property and challenged two alienations— a sale deed (2007) and a gift deed (2008) executed by the adoptive mother after his adoption. The dispute hinged on whether the adoption of a widow’s son relates back to the husband'

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search